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 .
Claims
The amendments to claims 1,3,5,7 and 13, the cancellation of claims 2, 4, 6, 10-12 and 16-18, and the addition of new claims 19-24, have been accepted.
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 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 13-15, 19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Japanese publication to Akai (JP 2018-054860 A) (English translation provided by the Examiner) in view of that which is well-known in the art.
In terms of claim 1, Akai teaches a device (100) comprising a case (110), an axis having member having a rotatable member (301, 306), an operation member (102) attached to the rotatable member of the axis-having member (301, 306) so as to be rotatable together with the rotatable member, and a fixing member (104) that fixes the axis-having member to the case (see Figures 1-3), the fixing member (104) having a central portion (section between the L-shaped ends of the metal fitting 104 having fitting hole 308, and connected to attachment portion 303, see Figure 3) that is attached to the axis-having member through fixing hole (308).
Akai Further teaches the rotatable member as a shaft-shaped member (306) that is rotatable around an axis of the axis-having member (see Figure 3), and the fixing member having a pair of slits (formed between the central portion of 104 and the L-shaped ends, see Figure 3), each opening in a direction perpendicular to a direction of said axis, thus defining the central portion of the fixing member in between the pair of slits (see Figure 3).
Akai fails however, to explicitly teach the central portion of the fixing member as being made from a flexible material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to form a portion of the fixing member from a flexible material or a material with flexibility, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended problem(s) to be solved and the criteria of the objectives to be met. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Further, given the Applicant describes the flexible member in the Specification as plate-shaped, and has not disclosed in the Specification that such a member having flexibility solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, it appears that the plate-shaped member of Akai would perform equally well.
As for claim 3, Akai teaches a supporting member (302) fixed to the case (110) through the attachment portion (303) of the fixing member (see Figures 1-3 and paragraph [0013]), the supporting member adjacent to a part of the operation member (102), and being configured to support said part of the operation member, in a direction perpendicular to a direction of said axis of the axis-having member (see Figure 3). The supporting member (302) being in direct contact with the operation member, and more specifically the hole (307) of the operation member (102), such that the elements are in constant contact no matter the situation or configuration of the operation member. Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claim 5, Akai teaches the operation member (102) sandwiched between the central portion of the fixing member (104) and the supporting member (302) in a direction of said axis of the axis-having member (see Figure 3). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claims 7 and 13, Akai teaches a user operation receiver that receives on operation by a user specifying a musical note (performance operators of keyboard 501 scanned by key scanner 607). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claims 8 and 14, Akai teaches the operation member (102) housed in the case (110) (see Figures 1 and 2), and the case having a panel member (top surface, see Figures 1 and 2) having an opening from which a part of the operation member (102) is exposed (see Figures 1, 2 and 5). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claims 9 and 15, Akai teaches the case (110) including a frame member (fixing members inside top surface of the case, see Figure 2) to which the fixing member (104) is fixed in an inside of the case in which the operation member (102) is housed (see Figure 2). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claims 19, 21 and 23, Akai teaches a projecting portion (103) of the operation member, that projects along said axis of the axis-having member in a direction opposite to a side on which the fixing member (104) is provided (member 103 projects away from and covers a side of the operation member 102 opposite the fixing member 104, see Figure 3; wherein Figure 10 shows the projecting thickness of member 103 projecting away from the operation member 102). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 22 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments regarding the slits, the Examiner has expanded the rejection above to better illustrate the slits of Akai provided between the L-shaped ends and central portion (portion having hole (308)) of the fixing member (104) (see Figure 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. lack of disclosure or suggestion that the spaces or slits of Akai are configured to impart flexibility to the central portion or to provide a load distributing function) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 Japanese publications to Yamazaki (JP 2000-322190) and Minowa (JP H11-249655).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 06/28/2026
Prosecution Insights