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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ preliminary amendment filed October 18, 2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 18, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claim 4 line 3: “the bolts” (a single bolt was previously described)
Claim 6 line 2: “the protrusion” (a plurality of protrusions was previously described)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (US 9,099,070 B2) in view of Hashimoto (US 8,173,886 B2).
Claims 1, 10 and 11: Shih et al. discloses an electronic percussion instrument and a non-percussion surface forming method for an electronic percussion instrument, shown in FIGURE 1 to have on an upper surface, a percussion surface (percussion member 110) that receives a percussion (column 4 lines 65-66) and a non-percussion surface (outermost ring of holder 160) that is not assumed to receive the percussion, as is recognized in the art. The electronic percussion instrument is shown to comprise: a sensor included in electronic sound generation unit (140) detecting a vibration of the percussion to the percussion surface (column 6 lines 13-20); a first frame (vibration resonance member 120) forming a skeleton of the percussion surface; an elastic body (vibration damping member 130) fixed to the first frame (column 5 lines 55-57); and a second frame (outer rings of holder 160) which is connected with the first frame, wherein the non-percussion surface is formed by an upper surface of the second frame. This reference fails to disclose the second frame to be connected with the first frame via the elastic body, and the sensor to not be installed on the second frame.
However Hashimoto teaches an electronic percussion instrument and a non-percussion surface forming method for an electronic percussion instrument, where a second frame (support frame 15) is shown in Fig. 2 to be connected with a peripheral area of a first frame (baseplate 12) via vibration absorber pieces (16) (column 3 lines 22-25) made of soft silicone rubber sponge (column 3 lines 32-34). The vibration absorber pieces then are an elastic body. A sensor (13) is further shown to be fixed to the first frame (column 3 lines 11-13), and therefore is not installed on the second frame.
Given the teachings of Hashimoto, 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 percussion instrument and method disclosed in Shih et al. with providing the second frame to be connected with the first frame via the elastic body, and the sensor to not be installed on the second frame. Doing so would “provide an electronic drum … and accordingly the sensitivity of the sensor … can be increased, which in turn will increase the dynamic range of the electronic drum” as taught in Hashimoto (column 3 lines 63-67).
Claim 2: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, where a plurality of elastic bodies (vibration absorber pieces 16) are shown in Fig. 3 of Hashimoto, and further shown in Fig. 2 to be supported in a cantilevered state by the first frame by having an end side fixed to the first frame and the second frame is fixed to an other side of the elastic bodies.
Claim 3: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, where each of the elastic bodies are shown in Fig. 3 of Hashimoto to extend radially from a center. These references fail to disclose the first frame to comprise an insertion hole for a rod to be inserted, such that each of the elastic bodies extends radially with the insertion hole.
However Shih et al. teaches another embodiment, where a first frame comprises an insertion hole, as shown in FIGURE 9, for a rod to be inserted, as is recognized in the art.
Given said another embodiment of Hashimoto, 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 percussion instrument and method disclosed in Shih et al. with providing the first frame to comprise an insertion hole for a rod to be inserted, such that each of the elastic bodies extends radially with the insertion hole. Doing so would provide a traditional means to support the percussion instrument, thereby mimicking a traditional percussion instrument appearance.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (US 9,099,070 B2) modified by Hashimoto (US 8,173,886 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Yoshino (US 7,468,483 B2).
Claim 4: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, but fails to disclose the elastic body, fixed to an upper surface side of the first frame to use a bolt; and a contact restriction part to restrict a contact between the bolts and the second frame.
However Yoshino teaches an electronic percussion instrument, where an elastic body (rubber nut 20b) is shown in FIG. 4(b) to be fixed to an upper surface side of a first frame (17) to use a bolt (screw 20a); and a contact restriction part to restrict a contact between the bolts and the second frame.
Given the teachings of Yoshino, 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 percussion instrument and method disclosed in Shih et al. with providing the elastic body, fixed to an upper surface side of the first frame to use a bolt; and a contact restriction part to restricting a contact between the bolts and the second frame. Doing so would provide adjustable contact between the first and second frames, thereby adjusting an amount and type of vibration experienced by the sensor.
Claim 5: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto and Yoshino discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, where the contact restriction part is formed by a plurality of protrusions erected from the elastic body toward a side of the second frame and surrounding the bolt, as shown in FIG 4(b) of Yoshino.
Claim 6: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto and Yoshino discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, where the protrusion are shown in FIG. 4(b) or Yoshino to comprise a groove formed on an outer circumferential surface on a side opposite to the bolt and extending in a direction around an axis of the bolt.
Claim 7: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, but fails to disclose the elastic body to comprise a fitting hole formed on an end side of the elastic body, and the first frame to comprise: a fixing protrusion, inserted into the fitting hole and provided for setting a fixing position of the elastic body; and a rotation restriction part, restricting rotation of the elastic body with respect to the fixing protrusion.
However Yoshino teaches an electronic percussion instrument, where an elastic body (rubber nut 20b) is shown in FIG. 4(b) to comprise a fitting hole formed on an end side of the elastic body to receive screw (20a), and the first frame to comprise: a fixing protrusion (screw 20a), inserted into the fitting hole and provided for setting a fixing position of the elastic body. A rotation restriction part (protruding segment that contacts a groove of the elastic body) restricts rotation of the elastic body with respect to the fixing protrusion, as is recognized in the art.
Given the teachings of Yoshino, 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 percussion instrument and method disclosed in Shih et al. with providing the elastic body to comprise a fitting hole formed on an end side of the elastic body, and the first frame to comprise: a fixing protrusion, inserted into the fitting hole and provided for setting a fixing position of the elastic body; and a rotation restriction part, restricting rotation of the elastic body with respect to the fixing protrusion. Doing so would provide adjustable contact between the first and second frames, thereby adjusting an amount and type of vibration experienced by the sensor.
Claim 8: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto and Yoshino discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, where rotation of the elastic body with respect to the fixing protrusion is restricted through contact between the rotation restriction part having a wall shape erected from an upper surface of the first frame and an outer circumferential surface of the elastic body, as shown FIG. 4(b) of Yoshino.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (US 9,099,070 B2) modified by Hashimoto (US 8,173,886 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Yoshino (US 10,878,786 B2) herein referred to as Kiyoshi.
Claim 9: Shih et al. modified by Hashimoto discloses an electronic percussion instrument as stated above, but fails to disclose the percussion surface and the first frame to be formed integrally.
However Kiyoshi teaches an electronic percussion instrument, where a percussion surface (membrane member 31) and a first frame (32) are formed integrally (column 3 lines 48-51).
Given the teachings of Kiyoshi, 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 percussion instrument and method disclosed in Shih et al. with providing the percussion surface and the first frame to be formed integrally. Doing so would “provide an electronic drum … and accordingly the sensitivity of the sensor … can be increased, which in turn will increase the dynamic range of the electronic drum” as taught in Hashimoto (column 3 lines 63-67).
Conclusion
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 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights