Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,9,10,16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Komatsu (USPGP 2009/0205476).
Regarding Claim 1, Komatsu discloses a piano pedal system 1 (Figs. 1, 8), comprising:
a pedal 4 pivotable (about fulcrum C1), over a full range of movement, between a first position (rest position of pedal 4 shown in solid lines, Figs. 1, 8) and a second position (depressed position of pedal 4 shown in dotted lines, Figs. 1, 8, para. 0037);
a sensor 6 (para. 0038) configured to output an electrical signal indicative of a position of the pedal (paras. 0038, 0042); and
a biasing member 48 coupled to the pedal 4, the biasing member 48 configured to apply a biasing force on the pedal 4 in response to displacement of the pedal 4 from the first position (para. 0063, Fig. 8),
wherein the biasing force is substantially linear over the full range of movement ("because of the spring 48, on the pedal 4, the reaction force which linearly grows according to the amount of displacement of the pedal 4 from the initial position," para. 0062).
Regarding Claim 9, Komatsu discloses an angular displacement of the pedal 4 between the first position (rest position of pedal 4 shown in solid lines, Figs. 1, 8) and the second position (depressed position of pedal 4 shown in dotted lines, Figs. 1, 8, para. 0037) is greater than 10° (depressed position of pedal 4 is more than 10 degrees, Figs. 1, 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Komatsu discloses the biasing force when the pedal 4 is in the second position is no more than 110% greater than the biasing force when the pedal 4 is halfway between the second position and the first position (when pedal 4 is depressed as shown in dotted lines, spring 48 exerts a reaction force against pedal 4, para. 0063, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 16, Komatsu discloses a base 2 (includes main body 8 and lid 9, Figs. 1, 8) on which the pedal 4 is pivotably mounted (via fulcrum C1, Figs. 1, 8), wherein a first end of the biasing member 48 bears against the base (top end of spring 48 bears against case 2, Fig. 8), and
wherein a second end of the biasing member 48 applies the biasing force to the pedal 4 (lower end of spring 48 bears against pedal 4, Fig. 8; when pedal 4 is depressed as shown in dotted lines, spring 48 exerts a reaction force against pedal 4, para. 0063, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Komatsu discloses the pedal 4 comprises a proximal end arranged to be manipulated by a user (see proximal end of pedal 4 comprises a free end outside of case 2 and which may be depressed by a user's foot, Figs. 1, 8, para. 0036), and a distal end (see distal end of pedal 4 is located within case 2, Figs. 1, 8);
wherein the pedal is pivotable about a fulcrum C1; and
wherein the biasing member 48 is arranged entirely between the fulcrum C1 and the distal end (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Komatsu discloses the biasing member 48 is arranged laterally adjacent to the pedal 4 (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 20, Komatsu discloses a digital piano system, comprising:
a digital piano (keyboard musical instrument, para. 0035); and
the piano pedal system of claim 1 (see pedal unit 1, Figs. 1, 8),
wherein the digital piano is configured to:
receive a first signal comprising the electrical signal or a variation thereof (action detecting portion 6 detects action of the pedal 4 such as amount of displacement, paras. 0038, 0042, Figs. 1, 8),
the first signal based on an output of the sensor 6 (para. 0038), and
output an audio signal based on the position of the pedal 4 (para. 0056).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5,8,11-13,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu.
Regarding Claim 2, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) and further discloses the biasing member 48 comprises a spring, wherein the spring is stretched or compressed from a first length to a second length as the pedal pivots from the first position to the second position (as pedal 4 is depressed, spring 48 is compressed from an original length to a second length, Fig. 8).
Komatsu does not explicitly teach that the second length differs from the first length by less than 25% the first length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second length differs from the first length by less than 25% the first length, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to maintain the spring integrity and stiffness, since the pedal may be depressed a great number of times over the life of the spring, and since the stiffness of the spring and its ability to return the pedal to an original position may affect the sensor data if it is compromised.
Regarding Claim 3, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, including a proximal end arranged to be manipulated by a user (proximal end of pedal 4 comprises a free end outside of case 2 and which may be depressed by a user's foot, Figs. 1, 8, para. 0036), and a distal end (distal end of pedal 4 is located within case 2, Figs. 1, 8); and wherein the pedal 4 is pivotable about a fulcrum C1 (para. 0036, Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach that the fulcrum arranged less than six inches from the proximal end of the pedal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the fulcrum arranged less than six inches from the proximal end of the pedal, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the rotation of the pedal feel more ergonomic and more like that of a traditional, stringed piano pedal.
Regarding Claim 4, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 3 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the fulcrum (fulcrum C1, para. 0036, Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach the fulcrum is arranged between three inches and five inches from the proximal end of the pedal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the fulcrum is arranged between three inches and five inches from the proximal end of the pedal, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the rotation of the pedal feel more ergonomic and more like that of a traditional, stringed piano pedal.
Regarding Claim 5, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses a proximal end of pedal 4 arranged to be manipulated by a user (Figs. 1, 8, para. 0036), and a distal end (Figs. 1, 8); and wherein the pedal 4 is pivotable about a fulcrum C1 (rotatably supported by a pedal supporting portion 10; Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach that the fulcrum is arranged between 35% and 65% of a length of the pedal from the proximal end of the pedal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the fulcrum arranged between 35% and 65% of a length of the pedal from the proximal end of the pedal, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the rotation of the pedal feel more ergonomic and more like that of a traditional, stringed piano pedal.
Regarding Claim 8, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the biasing member 48 comprises a spring (Fig. 8), the spring providing the biasing force on the pedal 4 (para. 0063, Fig. 8), but does not explicitly teach at least 90% of the biasing force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the spring provide at least 90% of the biasing force, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to minimize moving parts of the pedal assembly that may deteriorate.
Regarding Claim 11, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the biasing force when the pedal 4 is halfway between the first position and the second position (paras. 0062, 0063, Fig. 8), but does not explicitly teach between 1 kg and 5 kg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the force be between 1 kg and 5 kg, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the rotation and return of the pedal feel more ergonomic and more like that of a traditional, stringed piano pedal.
Regarding Claim 12, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the pedal 4 has a weight (Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach that the weight is less than 200 grams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the weight be less than 200 grams, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the rotation and return of the pedal feel more ergonomic and more like that of a traditional, stringed piano pedal.
Regarding Claim 13, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the pedal 4 (Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach that the pedal is at least six inches long.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pedal be at least six inches long, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to make the rotation and return of the pedal feel more ergonomic and more like that of a traditional, stringed piano pedal.
Regarding Claim 15, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the pedal 4 (Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach a second pedal and a third pedal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second pedal and a third pedal, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to simulate the typical three-pedal system that is utilized in a traditional, stringed piano setting.
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Yamamoto et al (WO 2022/202820).
Regarding Claim 6, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the pedal 4 comprises a proximal end arranged to be manipulated by a user and a distal end (Figs. 1, 8, para. 0036); wherein the pedal is pivotable about a fulcrum C1; and wherein the sensor 6 (para. 0038) is configured to detect the position of the pedal (para. 0038, Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach the sensor is configured to detect the position of the pedal between the fulcrum and the distal end of the pedal.
Yamamoto is in the field of electric piano pedals (pedal for an electronic keyboard, para. 0041) and teaches the sensor 173 (Fig. 3) is configured to detect the position of the pedal 100 between the fulcrum C (Fig. 3) and the distal end of the pedal 100 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the sensor location of Yamamoto with the sensor of Komatsu to allow the majority of the pedal length to extend outward from the casing such that it is accessible by the user.
Regarding Claim 7, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 6 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the sensor 6 (Figs. 1, 8, para. 0038) is configured to detect the position of the pedal 4 (para. 0038, Figs. 1, 8), but does not explicitly teach the sensor is configured to detect the position of the pedal at the distal end of the pedal.
Yamamoto is in the field of electric piano pedals (pedal for an electronic keyboard, para. 0041) and teaches the sensor 173 (Fig. 3) is configured to detect the position of the pedal 100 toward the distal end of the pedal 100 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the sensor location of Yamamoto with the sensor of Komatsu to allow the majority of the pedal length to extend outward from the casing such that it is accessible by the user. Yamamoto is silent as to at the distal end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to detect the position at the distal end, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to remove the need for the stopper at the distal end, and instead use the contact sensor as the stopper, for both stopping the physical movement, and to detect the pedal when it is in the depressed position.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Liu et al (USPGP 2018/0322856).
Regarding Claim 14, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the sensor 6 (para. 0038), but does not explicitly teach the sensor 6 is a contactless inductive sensor or a contactless Hall sensor.
Liu is in the field of electronic piano pedals (generating performance information based on the piano pedal movement, abstract) and teaches a contactless inductive sensor or a contactless Hall sensor (sensor 301 may be configured to detect movement of the pedal, and the sensor 301 may be a Hall sensor, para. 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to combine the Hall sensor of Liu with the sensor of Komatsu to provide a sensor with a longer life cycle since the pedal may be depressed a great number of times during operation.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu in view of Kitagawa (USPGP 2008/0098873).
Regarding Claim 17, Komatsu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, and further discloses the biasing member 48 extends along an axis (Fig. 8), and the lever arm of the pedal 4 (Fig. 8), but does not explicitly teach the biasing member 48 extends along an axis along which a lever arm of the pedal 4 extends.
Kitagawa is in the field of electronic instrument pedals (electronic percussion instrument pedal device, abstract) and teaches the biasing member 10 (Figs. 1, 2a) extends along an axis along which a lever arm of the pedal 2 (Figs. 1, 2a) extends (coil spring 10 extends along a longitudinal axis for the pedal assembly 1, and foot board structure 2 extends along the longitudinal axis for the pedal assembly 1, Figs. 1, 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to combine the biasing member axis of Kitagawa with the pedal assembly of Komatsu to minimize the vertical space needed for the pedal assembly housing, and to allow more pedal surface to extend beyond the housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837