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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3, line 4, recites “contacts the arc surface at at” contains a typographical error. 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 4-5 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.
The term “relatively” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the first facing surface is relatively displaced” and “the second facing surface is relatively displaced”. The term “relatively” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it fails to identify the reference frame or reference component relative to which the displacement is measured. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as requiring that, in response to depression of each of the plurality of keys, the first facing surface is displaced away from the protrusion relative to the protrusion, while the second facing surface is displaced toward the protrusion relative to the protrusion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it depends from claim 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10373596 (Suzuki), hereinafter US’596, in view of US20150114202 (Suzuki), hereinafter US’202.
Regarding claim 1, US’202 discloses ‘A keyboard device (US’596, Fig. 1, keyboard device 1, col. 3, lines 12, “a keyboard device”) comprising:
a support member (US’596, Fig. 1, keyboard chassis (3), hammer support (4) and support shaft (43) supporting the keyboard mechanism);
a plurality of keys, swingably supported by the support member and arranged side by side in a scale direction (US’596, [Abstract]:”The keyboard device includes longitudinally extending wooden keys capable of swinging and laterally juxtaposed”; col. 3, lines 13-17:” a plurality of keys …configured to be capable of swinging about a support … the keys being arranged … juxtaposed”);
and a hammer, interlocked with swinging of each of the plurality of keys (US’596, col. 3, lines 42-44:”when the key is depressed … the hammer is pushed up by the key via the protrusion, and thereby pivotally moved upward”; col. 3, lines 14-15:”keys … each extending in a front - rear direction and configured to be capable of swinging about a support”; col. 16, lines 52-54:”…the hammer 5 is pushed up via the key contact part 56 to pivotally move upward …”),
an arc surface is formed on at least one of a bottom surface of the receiving part and a lower surface of the protrusion (US’596, col. 13, lines 43-45:”the contact protrusion 57 … protrudes downward and has a lower surface formed in an arcuate shape in cross-section”; col. 13, lines 52-62“the protrusion cover 58…has a bottom surface formed in an arcuate shape in cross-section.”);
and in response to swinging of each of the plurality of keys, the protrusion rotates about a center of a circle comprising the arc surface (US’596, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Figs 12A-13C, hammer 5, hammer support shaft 43, contact protrusion, 57, col., lines:”… the hammer is pushed up by the key … and is thereby pivotally moved upward”)
US’596 does not expressly disclose ‘wherein the hammer comprises a receiving part that is recessed downward; each of the plurality of keys comprises a protrusion that protrudes downward and is inserted into the receiving part.
However, US’202 discloses ‘wherein the hammer comprises a receiving part that is recessed downward (US’202, ¶[0056]:“The engagement recess 34 for engagement with the actuator part 22 of the key 3 is formed in the front half of the hammer body 31…”)(US’202, ¶[0056], ¶[0060]:”the actuator part 22 of the key 3 presses the engagement recess 34 of the hammer 4 downward”);
each of the plurality of keys comprises a protrusion that protrudes downward and is inserted into the receiving part (US’202, Fig. 2B, 3A and 4 show actuator part 22 projecting downward from the key and being received in engagement recess 34, ¶[0053]:”the white key 3a has an actuator part 22 (22a), which projects downward”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hammer mechanism of US’596 to utilize the protrusion-and-receiving engagement configuration taught by US’202 because both references are directed to keyboard action mechanisms for electronic keyboard instruments that transmit pivotal movement between a key and an associated hammer.
Utilizing complementary receiving-part protrusion arrangement of US’202 in the keyboard mechanism of US’596 would have been a predictable substitution of one of known interlocking configuration for another to achieve reliable transmission of key motion while maintaining stable engagement between the key and hammer, yielding predictable result of smooth and accurate hammer actuation. Such a modification would substitute one known mechanical coupling for another performing the same function and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
US’596 (in view of US’202) further discloses ‘wherein the receiving part comprises a wall rising from both ends of the bottom surface of the receiving part in the scale direction (US’202, ¶[0056]:”… the lower portion of the actuator part 22 of the key 3 is received in the engagement recess 34 in a state in which a lower end of the actuator part 22 is held in contact with a bottom Surface of the engagement recess 34”; the engagement recess is further illustrated in Figs. 2A and 2B as being bound by opposing side walls extending upward from the bottom surface).
Regarding claim 3, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
US’596 further discloses ‘wherein the arc surface is formed on either of the bottom surface of the receiving part and the lower surface of the protrusion (US’596, col. 13, lines 42-45:” the contact protrusion 57 of the key contact part 56 protrudes downward and has a lower surface formed in an arcuate shape in cross - section”),
and the other of the bottom surface of the receiving part and the lower surface of the protrusion contacts the arc surface at least two points (US’596, col. 5, lines 20-24:” when the key swings… the hammer associated with the key is pushed up by the key via the contact protrusion and is thereby pivotally moved upward”).
Regarding claim 4, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
US’596 further discloses ‘wherein a first facing surface and a second facing surface facing front and rear of the protrusion are formed on the bottom surface of the receiving part (US’596, col. 13, lines 43-67, Fig. 11-12, illustrate the front and rear interior surfaces of receiving portion 59a facing the front and rear protrusion 5);
the first facing surface is displaced in a direction away from the protrusion in response to depression of each of the plurality of keys (US’596, col. 13, lines 43-67, Fig. 11-12, illustrated by the relative positions shown in Figures 11 and 12 the front interior surface of receiving portion 59a becomes relatively displaced away from protrusion 57 during pivotal movement);
the second facing surface is displaced in a direction approaching the protrusion in response to depression of each of the plurality of keys (US’596, col. 13, lines 43-67, Fig. 11-12, illustrates the opposite interior surface of receiving portion 59a becomes relatively displaced toward protrusion 57 as the hammer rotates during key depression);
US’596 does not expressly disclose ‘and in an initial position before key depression of each of the plurality of keys, a gap between the protrusion and the second facing surface is formed wider than a gap between the protrusion and the first facing surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the keyboard device of US’596 by selecting unequal initial clearances between protrusion 57 and the opposing facing surfaces of receiving portion 59a. US’596 recognizes that protrusion 57and receiving portion 59a cooperate to guide the pivotal movement of the hammer while limiting excessive movement during key depression (Figs. 11-12). The relative clearances between protrusion 57 and the receiving surfaces are therefore result-effective variables affecting rotational clearance, smooth pivotal movement, and wear. Selecting one initial gap to be larger than the other would have amounted to routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to obtain a desired operational characteristic. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 4, as discussed above.
US’596 further discloses ‘wherein in the initial position, at least a portion of the first facing surface is separated from the protrusion (US’596, col. 13, lines 43-67, Fig. 11-12, As illustrated in Figure 11, the initial position before key depression, in which protrusion 57 is received, protrusion does occupy the entire receiving portion 59a, leaving clearance between the protrusion and portions of the opposed interior surfaces);
and in an end position of key depression of each of the plurality of keys, at least a portion of the second facing surface is separated from the protrusion (US’596, col. 13, lines 43-67, Fig. 11-12, As illustrated in Figure 12 following pivotal movement of hammer 59 relative to protrusion 57, clearance remains between the protrusion of the opposite interior surface of receiving portion 59a).
Regarding claim 6, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
US’596 further discloses ‘wherein a recess is formed in the arc surface (US’596, Fig. 12B, contact protrusion 57, arcuate lower surface, hook-receiving part 59, latching recess 59a, Fig. 12c – shows protrusion cover with an arcuate bottom surface, col.8 , lines 11-16; col. 13, lines 55-62:”protrusion cover 58 … has a bottom surface thereof formed in an arcuate shape in the cross-section”).
Regarding claim 7, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
US’596 further discloses ‘wherein a recess is formed in the lower surface of the protrusion (US’596, contact protrusion 57 having a recess, col. 13, lines 46-51:“the hammer body 51 has a hook-receiving part 59 … The hook-receiving part 59 is formed in a recessed shape opening downward, and has a latching recess 59a”; Figs. 11 and 12A-12C illustrate the contact protrusion 57 with the downward-opening recessed portion 59/59a).
Regarding claim 8, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
US’596 (in view of US’202) further discloses ‘wherein the arc surface is formed on each of the bottom surface of the receiving part and the lower surface of the protrusion (US’202, “The curved surface 25 of the actuator part 22 is brought into sliding contact with the bottom surface of the engagement recess 34 ..”);
and a recess is formed in the arc surface of the protrusion (US’202, “Each of the opposed protrusions 39 has an arcuate shape in side view …”).
Regarding claim 9, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 8, as discussed above.
US’596 (in view of US’202) further discloses ‘wherein the recess is a groove extending across both front and rear ends of the arc surface of the protrusion (US’202, Fig. 7, shows the hammer body opposed protrusion 39 adjacent partition part 50, Fig. 8A shows groove 39a extending longitudinally in arcuate protrusion 39, ¶[0025]:”each of the opposed protrusions is formed in an arcuate shape in side view, which extends along a concentric circle about the support”).
Regarding claim 10, US’596 (in view of US’202) discloses ‘The keyboard device according to claim 8, as discussed above.
US’596 (in view of US’202) further discloses ‘wherein the recess is a groove extending across both ends of the arc surface of the protrusion (US’202, Fig. 7, shows the hammer body opposed protrusion 39 adjacent partition part 50, Fig. 8A shows groove 39a extending longitudinally in arcuate protrusion 39, Fig. 8B show cross-section of groove 39a formed in the arcuate protrusion, ¶[0027]:”each of the opposed protrusions is formed with a groove for retaining lubricant”)in the scale direction (US’202, ¶[0064]).
Regarding claim 11, US’596 discloses ‘An interlocking method of a hammer, adapted for a keyboard device (US’596, Figs. 11 and 12A-12C, col. 5, lines 20-24:”when the key swings, by being depressed …hammer … pushed up by the key via the contact protrusion … pivotally moved upward about the support in the rear end”) comprising
a support member,
a plurality of keys that are swingably supported by the support member and are arranged side by side in a scale direction,
and a hammer that is interlocked with swinging of each of the plurality of keys, in which the hammer comprises a receiving part that is recessed downward,
each of the plurality of keys comprises a protrusion that protrudes downward and is inserted into the receiving part,
and an arc surface is formed on at least one of a bottom surface of the receiving part and a lower surface of the protrusion,
the interlocking method of a hammer comprising: by rotating the protrusion about a center of a circle comprising the arc surface, interlocking the hammer with swinging of each of the plurality of keys. (Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US10770049 (Ogawa) teaches reducing contact area and friction between moving member and guide/sliding surfaces.
JP2005292361 (Kawai) teaches rotating component/key support mechanism.
US1992939 teaches piano action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE K GILLESPIE whose telephone number is (571)482-4187. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5pm.
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 K Hammond can be reached at (571)270-3819. 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.
/NICOLE K GILLESPIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights