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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-9 and 11-13 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 include limitations pertaining to “the processor”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the processor” as the claim(s) previously describe at least one processor. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the at least one processor, or further limit the at least one processor to be a single processor. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “the at least one processor”.
Claims 2 and 11 include the limitation “a selection area corresponding to an option that is each of the options, and causes”. However it is unclear whether applicants intend the selection area to correspond to a single option of the displayed options, the selection area to correspond to a single option which represents multiple displayed options, or the selection area to correspond to multiple options representing multiple displayed options respectively. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “a selection area corresponding to each of the options, and causes”.
Claims 4 and 13 include the limitations “causes the option displayed on the display … corresponding to the option among the light emitters” and “such that the option is linked”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the option” as the claims previously describe at least two displayed options. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the at least two displayed options, or introduce a single option of the at least two displayed options. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as stating “causes an option of the at least two options displayed on the display … corresponding to an option among the light emitters” and “such that the displayed option is linked”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 9-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by Hastings (US 8,008,563 B1).
Claims 1, 10 and 18: Hastings discloses an electronic device, a control method for a computer, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for a computer shown in FIG: 4 to comprise: a display (56) and a detection surface (keyboard). A detector detects input by a user corresponding to contact between an operating body (user’s finger) and the detection surface (column 13 lines 3-13), and multiple light emitters (second set of lights 18-43) are provided at a position corresponding to the detector to cause the detection surface to emit light, as shown in FIG. 2. At least one processor/computer performs control to link displaying regarding at least part of a content on the display with light emission of at least part of the light emitters (column 18 lines 61-65), as shown in FIG: 22.
Claims 2 and 11: Hastings discloses an electronic device and control method, as stated above, where at least two options (music notes) are shown in FIG: 27 to be displayed on the display and the at least one processor/computer sets, on the detection surface, a selected area corresponding to each of the options, and causes a light emitter corresponding to the selected area among the light emitters to emit light (column 20 lines 19-22).
Claims 3 and 12: Hastings discloses an electronic device and control method, as stated above, where prompts are provided to a user to play two keys in each hand simultaneously (column 15 lines 57-60). Therefore four options (two music notes on a treble clef staff and two music notes on a bass clef staff) would be displayed on the display, and the at least one processor/computer sets the selection area corresponding to the option on the detection surface so as to create four areas top (black keys), bottom (white keys), left (bass clef keys), and right (treble clef keys), and causes the light emitter, among the light emitters to emit light (illuminate) (column 15 lines 57-60).
Claims 4 and 13: Hastings discloses an electronic device and control method, as stated above, where the at least one processor/computer causes an option displayed on the display and the light emitter corresponding to the selection area corresponding to an option among the light emitters, to emit light or extinguish light, such that the displayed option is linked with the light emitter (column 13 lines 3-13).
Claims 5 and 14: Hastings discloses an electronic device and control method, as stated above, where a user is prompted to repeat an input with necessary prompts when the input is incorrect (column 17 lines 8-11). Therefore the at least one processor/computer does not change the content displayed on the display in response to the contact of the operating body to an area in the detection surface when the contact is incorrect, the area corresponding to a light emitter that is not caused to emit light among the light emitters.
Claim 9: Hastings discloses an electronic device as stated above, where the electronic device is an electronic musical instrument, as shown in FIG: 4.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (US 8,008,563 B1) in view of Haruyama (US 5,886,273).
Claims 6 and 15: Hastings discloses an electronic device and control method as stated above, but fails to disclose the detector to detect the contact or proximity between the operating body and the detection surface in response to a change in capacitance being a threshold value or more.
However Haruyama teaches an electronic device and control method, where a detector (capacity sensor) detects proximity between an operating body (players hand) and a detection surface (keyboard) (column 21 lines 41-46). The detector detects said proximity in response to a change in capacitance being a threshold value or more, as is known in the art.
Given the teachings of Haruyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device and control method disclosed in Hastings with providing the detector to detect the contact or proximity between the operating body and the detection surface in response to a change in capacitance being a threshold value or more. Doing so would provide advanced indication to a user that a his/her finger is about to press an incorrect key, and therefore allow the user to correct the finger placement before pressing a key.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (US 8,008,563 B1) in view of Parsons et al. (US 8,952,232 B2).
Claims 7 and 16: Hastings discloses an electronic device and control method as stated above, where the light emitters are associated with each key of the detection surface, as shown in FIG: 2. This reference fails to disclose the detection surface to be circular, and the light emitters to be circularly provided.
However Parsons et al. teaches an electronic device and control method, where a detection surface (keyboard 100) is shown in FIG. 1A to be circular (column 3 lines 43-46), and light emitters associated with each key of the detection surface are circularly provided, as shown in FIG. 4B (column 5 lines 58-62).
Given the teachings of Parsons et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device and control method disclosed in Hastings with providing the detection surface to be circular, and the light emitters to be circularly provided. Doing so would “provide not only aesthetic enhancement, and in certain instances space-saving practicality, but also achieve practicality of the product, such as for a state performance” as taught in Parsons et al. (column 12 lines 26-32).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (US 8,008,563 B1) modified by Parsons et al. (US 8,952,232 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Goel et al. (US 10,809,808 B2).
Claims 8 and 17: Hastings modified by Parsons et al. discloses an electronic device and control method as stated above, where a slide operation (playing a glissando) of the detection surface by the operating body is accepted, as is known in the art. The at least one processor/computer causes part of the light emitters that are circularly provided to emit light when played, as shown in Parsons et al. (column 5 lines 58-62). When receiving said slide operation, the light emitters that are circularly provided would sequentially emit light, as is recognized in the art. Parsons et al. further teaches lights on a stage to be controlled via input on the detection surface (column 5 lines 39-45). These references fail to disclose the at least one processor/computer to cause the display to perform displaying of representing a rotation of a circular diagram, and the sequentially emitted light to be linked with the rotation of the circular diagram displayed on the display.
However Goel et al. teaches an electronic device and control method, where a display (visualization presenter 108) displays interaction between a user (musician) and the electronic device to an audience (column 4 lines 46-52) as a digital representation of a portion of a detection surface (keyboard) as lighting effects (column 4 lines 1-5).
Given the teachings of Goel et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device and control method disclosed in Hastings as modified by Parsons et al. with providing a display to display interaction between a user and the electronic device to an audience as a representation of the detection surface as lighting effects, where sequentially emitted lights would be linked with the display. The at least one processor/computer then would cause the display to perform displaying of representing a rotation of a circular diagram when receiving a slide operation, such that the sequentially emitted light would be linked with the rotation of the circular diagram displayed on the display. Doing so would “generate a visual output … and effects such as lighting effects to accompany the audio output” as taught in Goel et al. (column 4 lines 1-5) for an audience (column 4 lines 50-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,394,784, US 5,656,789, US 5,907,115, US 7,674,964 B2, US 9,583,084 B1, US 2019/0251936 A1 pertaining to an electronic musical instrument having light emitters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights