DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The amendments to Figures 2A, 2C, A and 3B have been accepted.
Specification
The amendments to pages 15-17 and 19 have been accepted.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Wheeler et al. (US 2009/0120264).
In terms of claim 1, Wheeler et al. teaches an instrument comprising: a plurality of keys (part of electronic piano 105) (see paragraph [0236]) arranged in sequence along a lateral direction; a foot pedal mechanism (181) positioned below the plurality of keys; a subwoofer positioned below the plurality of keys (see Figure 46 and paragraph [0242]); and a controller (audio control device 290; computer/controller 150, paragraph [0243]) operably connected to the plurality of keys, the foot pedal mechanism, and the subwoofer, the controller configured to cause the digital piano to produce an audible output based on at least a user input on the plurality of keys, at least a portion of the audible output being emitted by the subwoofer, wherein a speaker of the subwoofer and the foot pedal mechanism have a same position along the lateral direction, and wherein the speaker is arranged to emit sound waves outwardly towards the foot pedal mechanism (see Figure 46; aperture 521 accepts foot actuated pedal assembly 181 (paragraph [0242]), similar to the upright design of Figure 39).
As for claim 2, Wheeler shows the subwoofer in contact with the floor pedal mechanism (see Figure 46).
As for claim 3, Wheeler teaches the foot pedal mechanism comprising a housing (183, 270, 272, dependent upon the pedal assembly inserted into the aperture), and the subwoofer comprising a housing (512, 523), wherein the housings are attached, and exterior surfaces contact (see Figure 46, mountable and interchangeable components, modular design, paragraph [0237]).
As for claim 4, Wheeler teaches the housing of the subwoofer positioned aligned with the housing of the foot pedal mechanism along a vertical direction (see Figure 46).
As for claim 5, Wheeler shows a forward surface of the housing of the subwoofer as rearward to the housing of the foot pedal mechanism and contacts a rear surface of the housing of the foot pedal (see Figure 46 and the inserted foot pedal mechanism forward of the subwoofer housing).
As for claims 6 and 7, if the foot pedal mechanism and housing (270, 272) are inserted into the configuration of Figure 46, Wheeler shows a rear surface of the foot pedal housing comprising a cushioning member (rubber pad 275, Figure 45C and paragraph [0235]; resilient pad 283, Figure 45C and paragraph [0233]), while further comprising one or more port holes (hole in rear wall 279, Figure 45C).
As for claim 8, Wheeler again teaches a housing for the subwoofer and foot pedal mechanism, wherein the subwoofer is aligned with the foot pedal mechanism along a vertical direction (see Figure 46).
As for claim 9, Wheeler teaches a modular design, wherein the components are demountable/mountable and interchangeable (see paragraph [0237]).
As for claims 10 and 11, Wheeler again teaches interchangeable components, having non-permanent attachment. Wheeler further teaches the use of multiple fastening means (see fastener arrangements, paragraph [0196]; fastener 810, Figure 41; fasteners, paragraph [00247]).
As for claims 12 and 13, Wheeler teaches a panel (513) extending along a rearward portion of the instrument, and covering at least a part of a forward portion of the instrument, wherein the subwoofer is positioned in the part of the forward portion, and the subwoofer and foot pedal housings are integrated with the panel (see Figure 46).
As for claim 14, Wheeler teaches a speaker system comprising a first portion above the plurality of keys and a second portion positioned below the plurality of keys, the second portion comprising the subwoofer (see Figure 46 and paragraphs [0240]-[0242]).
As for claim 15, Wheeler shows the subwoofer as an enclosed speaker (see Figure 46).
As for claim 18, Wheeler shows the speaker of the subwoofer aligned with and positioned above the foot pedal mechanism along a vertical direction (see Figure 46).
As for claim 19, Wheeler shows the subwoofer and foot pedal mechanism positionable on a floor surface and the instrument supported on the floor by the housings of the subwoofer and foot pedal mechanism (see Figure 46).
As for claim 20, wheeler teaches the controller configured to deal with multiple frequency ranges, such that the lowest, or sub0audible, are emitted by the subwoofer (see paragraphs [0023], [0175] and [0179]).
In terms of claims 21-25, Wheeler again teaches the similar elements as outlined above in claims 1, 8, 9, 15 and 18-20 (see references cited above).
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.
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. in view of that which is well-known in the art.
Wheeler fails to explicitly teach the claimed dimensions of the subwoofer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to configure the subwoofer with the claimed dimensions, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, such adjustments of dimensions would have been obvious given the modular design, and interchangeable components of Wheeler, allowing for customization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/04/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive with regards to the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 07/08/2026
Prosecution Insights