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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 11, reference number S1103 is shown, but fails to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 4 and 10, overtones are recited, however, there is no mention of overtones in the Specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:\
Line 6, “Wherein” should be - - wherein - - .
Line 8, “a operation” should be - - an operation - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 2-4, the recitation “a plurality of keys that includes a first and a second key having a pitch in a harmonic relationship with a pitch of the first key” is indefinite. Examiner suggests - - a plurality of keys that includes a first key and a second key, the second key having a pitch in a harmonic relationship with a pitch of the first key - - .
Claim 1, line 8, the recitation “a first key” is indefinite. Please clarify whether this first key is the same as, related to, or different from the previously recited first key.
Claim 1, line 16, please clarify whether “the resonance tone” is the same as, related to, or different from the previously recited resonance tone. The indefiniteness arises due to the recited resonance tones having different pitches and timbres; therefore it is unclear how said resonance tones can be the same.
Similar rejections apply to claims 7 and 13.
Claim 2, please clarify how a single second key can comprise a plurality of second keys.
A similar rejection applies to claim 8.
Claim 4, line 2, please clarify which resonance tone (i.e. the tone with the first pitch and timbre (non-damped), or the tone with the second pitch and timbre (damped state)) is being referenced; or, if the same tone, please clarify for which instance (i.e. first or second pitch and tone, or non-damped or damped state) the limitation applies.
Claim 4, line 3, “each second key” is indefinite, given claim 1 merely recites a single second key.
Claim 4, lines 4-5, please clarify “each second key having a harmonic relationship” (i.e., harmonic relationship with what other element?).
Claim 4, lines 5-6, please clarify “depending on whether a second overtone or a third overtone” (i.e. whether a second or third overtone what?). The limitation appears to be incomplete.
Claim 4 and 5, please clarify what is intended by a second and third overtone, and how they correspond to the other elements of the invention, given there is no mention of such elements in the Specification, and the limitation does not define from which signal the overtones are identified.
Still further, the recitation of a second and third overtone is further indefinite given there is no previous mention of a first overtone.
Similar rejections apply to claim 10.
Claim 6, line 5, please clarify which resonance tone is being referenced, or which state of the resonance tone is being referenced.
Claim 6, line 8, please clarify which resonance tone is being referenced (i.e. tone with first pitch and timbre, tone with second pitch and timbre, or new tone), or which state of the resonance tone is being referenced.
Claim 6, lines 9 and 13, please again clarify which tone or which state of the tone is being referenced.
Claim 6, lines 11-13, the recitation “controls the generation of the resonance tone, based on a result of the comparison” is indefinite, given the comparison is performed between different velocities of the already present resonance tone. Please clarify how the resonance tone can be generated based on its already present self.
Similar rejections apply to claim 12.
Further in claim 10, it is believed that claim 10 should be dependent upon claim 7 and not claim 1.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent to Matsunaga (10,049,651).
In terms of claim 1, Matsunaga teaches an electronic musical instrument (see Abstract) comprising: a plurality of keys (see Figures 1-3 and column 2, lines 12-15 and column 4, lines 15-17) that includes a first (see column 4, lines 59-64 and Figure 7 step S21) and a second key (see Figure 2, see any other key of the keyboard) having a pitch in a harmonic relationship with a pitch of the first key (see Figure 2 where all the keys have a harmonic resonance relationships as per fig. 2) (also, any interval between two different keys in a music keyboard defines a harmonic relationship); and at least one processor (1) (see Figure 1), wherein the at least one processor performs the following: deciding, in response to an operation of a first key (see Figure 5 steps S4 or S5 occurring after step S3, see also column 8, lines 17-30), whether the second key is in a damped state or in a non-damped state (see Figures 11 and 14, resonance coefficient process, and Figure 13, resonance depth coefficient being 0 when the damper is on (i.e. lowered) and 7 when the damper is off i.e. raised); generating, in a case where the second key is in the non-damped state, a resonance tone corresponding to the second key with at least one of a first resonance pitch and a first timbre (see Figure 2, resonance circuit of the second key assigned with the corresponding coefficient of the table in Figure 13, line 7, when the damper is raised); and generating, in a case where the second key is in the damped state, the resonance tone corresponding to the second key with at least one of a second resonance pitch and a second timbre (see column 10, lines 59-67 and Figure 2, resonance circuit of the second key assigned with the corresponding coefficient of the table in Figure 13, line 0, when the damper is on (lowered)).
In terms of claims 7 and 13, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claim 1, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claim 7 and stored instruction claim 13, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus and the instructions for implementing the method.
As for claims 2 and 8, Matsunaga teaches the second key being any one of a plurality of keys (see Figure 14, where the second key corresponds to any of the keys except the changed key in Figure 7).
As for claims 3 and 9, Matsunaga teaches a higher second pitch (see Figure 2, with resonators tuned to key pitches higher than the last depressed key in Figure 7).
As for claims 4 and 10, Matsunaga teaches output tones based on strength information such as the distance of descent of the Keys, or differing key distances (see column 6, lines 24-27 and 28-40).
As for claims 5 and 11, Matsunaga teaches states based on a damper pedal (see Figure 10).
As for claims 6 and 12, Matsunaga teaches a comparison between resonance coefficients (see column 10, lines 40-43 and Figure 11 step S63 and the resonance coefficients (i.e. claimed velocity, since larger coefficients mean larger resonance velocity) comparison in Figure 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner, in particular, the US patent application publications to Itoh (US 2016/0284329), Izumisawa et al. (US 2007/0175318) and Sakata (US 2021/0295806).
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 03/30/2026
Prosecution Insights