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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3,14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, there is no structural or functional relationship recited between the “structural layer” and the rest of the claimed limitations. Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 14, the metes and bounds of “modicum of friction” are unclear. Correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected (to the extent understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Tremblay et al (USPGP 20140337724).
Regarding Claim 1, Tremblay discloses a partial timbre sound synthesis instrument comprising: a structural layer 200 or 301; a tactile feedback interface (Fig. 19A, 1901); and a processing device 1904 in data communication with the tactile feedback interface 1901, the processing device 1904 being configured to build a model (displayed on 1908) from the data signals 1902, 1903 received from the tactile feedback interface 1901.
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.
Claim(s) 2,3 is/are rejected (to the extent understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tremblay in view of Rosenberg et al (USPGP 20200285340).
Regarding Claims 2,3 Tremblay (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed but does not explicitly teach the tactile feedback interface comprising at least one swiper or selector pad.
Rosenberg discloses a tactile touch sensor system which comprises a pad 0301 which reads on a swiper (9700, Fig. 97) or selector pad (2500, Fig. 25, or selecting notes, 3700, Fig. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt the teachings of Tremblay with those of Rosenberg, as both are directed towards music control with tactile sensors, and as these pads are widely known in the art to be interface devices for computers like the one taught by Tremblay.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13,15-17 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.
Claim 14 would 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.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights