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)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figures 8 and 10, reference numbers 62-1, 62-2, 62-3 and 62-4 are shown, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
In Figures 9 and 10, reference numbers 161 and 162 are shown, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
In Figures 9 and 10, reference characters O12, O13, O22 and O23 are shown, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
In Figure 10, reference numbers 63-1, 63-2 and 63-3 are shown, but fail to be mentioned in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 [0027] and [0028], reference number 652 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 1-9 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.
In terms of claim 1, lines 13-17, it is unclear how the generating task can generate position data indicating a position of the movable member based on the position of the movable member (i.e. position based on itself). Please clarify.
Claim 1, line 19, “the voltage of the detection signal obtained” is indefinite. The outputted detection signal is previously recited as corresponding to a voltage, however, there is no mention of a voltage that is a part of the signal. Further, there is no previous mention of a detection signal being obtained. Therefore, there are antecedent basis issues relating to the voltage and the obtained signal.
Still further, please clarify whether this obtained detection signal relates to either the previously mentioned detection signals or the outputted detection signal.
As for claims 3 and 4, a similar rejection regarding the recitation “the voltage of the detection signal” applies.
As for claim 7, line 3, “the detection signal obtained” is indefinite, given the detection signal is previously mentioned as outputted and not obtained.
Claim 7, lines 5-6, the recitation that the instrument calibrates based on the estimated voltage is indefinite, given preceding claim 6 recites the calibration based on the calculated average value of the voltages. Please clarify how the calibration is based on both.
Claim 7, lines 7-9, please clarify the recitation that a position where the movable member is closer to the coil than a position where a distance between the detectable circuit and the coil is smallest. This statement appears to recite the same position in comparison with itself, given the detectable circuit is on the movable member (i.e. movable member closer to the coil than the distance between detectable circuit on movable member and the coil).
Further, please clarify how something can be closer than the smallest value.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Clark et al. (US 2015/0170625).
In terms of claim 1, Clark et al. teaches a musical instrument comprising: a fixed member(15) (see Figure 6); a movable member (16) (see Figure 6) displaceable relative to the fixed member within a movable range in response to a playing operation of the musical instrument (see paragraph [0059]); a detectable circuit (20) including a magnetic or conductive body and disposed on the movable member (see paragraph [0059]); a detector circuit (1) including a coil disposed on the fixed member and configured to output a detection signal corresponding to a voltage that is dependent on a distance between the detectable circuit and the coil (see Figures 1 and 6, and paragraph [0059]); at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to implement the instructions to perform a plurality of tasks (see paragraphs [0018], [0061], [0062] and [0065]), including: a generating task that generates, based on correspondences between voltages of detection signals and positions of the movable member in the movable range, position data indicating a position of the movable member that depends on the voltage of the detection signal output from the detector circuit; and a calibrating task that calibrates the correspondences based on the voltage of the detection signal obtained while the movable member is at a predetermined position within the movable range (see Figures 12a and 12b, and paragraph [0065]).
As for claim 2, Clark et al. teaches the alignment of the detectable circuit (20) with the detector circuit (1) indicates the smallest distance within the movable range (see Figure 6).
As for claims 4 and 5, Clark again teaches the smallest distance between elements 20 and 1 occurs during alignment, and the estimation or calculation of voltages, where calibration occurs based on said estimations or calculations (see paragraph [0065]). Clark et al. further teaches a system comprising a plurality of sensors and circuits (i.e. multiple movable members, detectable circuits and detector circuits) (see paragraphs [0013], [0023] and [0043]).
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Clark et al. (US 2020/0320966).
Clark et al. teaches a sensing system for a keyboard such as a musical instrument keyboard, comprising a plurality of key sensors. Each key sensor is provided with a detectable circuit (passive resonance circuit) mounted at a movable member of a key, and a detector circuit (active resonance circuit) mounted at a fixed member (reference position). A detector is provided to detect the level of a RF signal from a driven key sensor. Variation in resonant RF signals is detected based on the relative positions of the active resonance circuit (detector circuit) and the passive resonance circuit (detectable circuit). Detecting variation in resonant signals enables a generating task (detection of key position). A readout electronic circuit generates voltage proportional to the amplitude of a signal at the readout point. Calibration is performed on the basis of the primary position of the keyboard. (See paragraphs [0011]-[0107], in particular those related to Figures 4-8 and 11-13B).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (‘625 or ‘966) in view of that which is well-known in the art.
Neither Clark et al. reference explicitly teaches the range value as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to provide values within the recited range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (‘966) in view of that which is well-known in the art.
Clark et al. again teaches a sensing system for a keyboard, in particular for a plurality of keys. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use such a sensing system on other movable elements of the keyboard, such as the hammers. Implementing such a system on other moving parts of the same apparatus to detect the positions of such elements, other than the keys, would have been obvious, and would not have required any extensive alterations to the invention as disclosed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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
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 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights