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)(4) because reference character “23” has been used to designate both ROM and RAM in Figure 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
In paragraphs [0048]-[0050] and [0170], reference number 22 is mentioned, but fails to appear in the Drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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 2-6, 11-15 and 20 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 2, line 2, please clarify whether “a musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information” is the same as, related to or different from the musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information recited in preceding claim 1, line 8.
Claim 3, line 6, please clarify whether “a musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information” is the same as, related to or different from the musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information recited in preceding claim 1, line 8.
Claim 11, line 2, please clarify whether “a musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information” is the same as, related to or different from the musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information recited in preceding claim 10, lines 6-7.
Claim 12, line 7, please clarify whether “a musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information” is the same as, related to or different from the musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information recited in preceding claim 10, lines 6-7.
Clam 13, lines 7-10, “the musical sound” is indefinite. Please clarify if this is meant to be the musical sound signal.
Further in the cited lines of claim 10, please clarify which musical sound signal “the musical sound” refers (i.e. based on the first or second playing information), given it appears that claim 13 recites that “the musical sound” is “on the basis of the first playing information …and the second playing information”.
If this “musical sound” is indeed intended to be based on both the first and second playing information, then “the musical sound” lacks antecedent basis, given there is no previous mention of a musical sound based on both playing information.
Claim 15, please clarify whether claim 15 is dependent upon claim 11 as written, or should instead be dependent upon claim 13, similar to the way claim 5 is dependent upon claim 4.
If claim 15 is to be dependent upon claim 11, then “the musical sound signal based on the second playing information” lacks antecedent basis, given there is no previous mention of a musical sound signal based on the second playing information in preceding claims 10 and 11.
Claim 20, line 6, please clarify whether “a musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information” is the same as, related to or different from the musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information recited in preceding claim 19, line 11.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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, 2, 7-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent to Loh et al. (8,981,199).
Firstly, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" (see claims 1 and 19) performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
In terms of claim 1, Loh et al. teaches a device comprising processing electronics configured to provide at least one first kind of communication link (121, 131, 141, 151, 312, 314, 332, 334, 422, 424, 426, 428, etc.) on which a digital signal (i.e. MIDI) having first playing information is received from a first playing operation device (530, 540, 550), each first kind of communication link being configured to be capable of receiving the digital signal from any one of a plurality of types of first playing operation devices; and a musical sound signal generating unit (560, 570) that generates a musical sound signal on the basis of the first playing information received from the first playing operation device on the first kind of communication link.
As for claim 2, Loh et al. teaches filtering out specific or undesirable music event data (see column 2, line 51 – column 3, line 3 and column 3, lines 16-33).
As for claims 7-9, Loh et al. teaches the playing operation device as either a pad (530), electronic piano (540) or an electric guitar (550) (see Figure 5).
In terms of claims 10, 11 and 16-18, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claims 1, 2 and 7-9, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claims 10, 11 and 16-18, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
In terms of claim 19, Loh et al. teaches a system comprising a playing operation device (530, 540, 550) that generates a playing information, and a sound source device as outlined above in claim 1 (see references cited above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 12-15 and 20 are believed to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Please be aware, that depending upon how the Applicant chooses to proceed, some amendments could result in a Double Patenting rejection with US application 17/546050 (US patent 12,288,543).
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.
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 06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights