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 do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Throughout the Specification, reference character H is mentioned in relation to a user, but fails to be shown 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 1-20 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.
In terms of claim 1, line 4, please clarify what is intended by a target electronic device (i.e. target device for what).
Claim 1, line 5, please clarify whether “the timbre” is related to the set timbre, or if it a completely separate timbre. If a separate timbre from the set timbre, then there is a lack of antecedent basis that needs to be addressed.
Claim 1, line 5, “the timbre of which is simulated” is indefinite. Please clarify whether the setting program is simulating the timbre, or whether the Applicant intends “simulated” to mean something else, for example, predetermined.
Claim 1, lines 6-7, please clarify which timbre is being referred to (i.e. set timbre or simulated timbre)
Claim 1, lies 8-10, please clarify this limitation. It is unclear why the setting manipulator is needed, or what its intended function is, given it performs the same function, or is for the same intended purpose, as the manipulator displayed in the appearance image, or visa versa (i.e. what is the purpose of having two manipulator’s that perform the same).
Claim 2, line 2, “the appearance image according to the target electronic device” is indefinite, given it is previously stated that the appearance image is an image of the target electronic device.
Claim 2, line 4, please clarify whether “a setting manipulator” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited setting manipulator.
Further, please clarify how a setting manipulator is displayed in the setting manipulator.
Claim 2, the recitation “in a common manner is displayed regardless of a manner of the appearance image displayed” is indefinite. Please clarify that which the Applicant intends by this limitation.
Claim 3, line 4, please clarify whether “a setting manipulator” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited setting manipulator.
Further, please clarify how a setting manipulator is displayed in the setting manipulator.
Claim 3, lines 6-7, please clarify whether “a correspondence display” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited correspondence display, how a correspondence display can be displayed in the correspondence display, and whether “a correspondence” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited correspondence.
Claim 3, line 7, please clarify which setting manipulator is being referenced.
Claim 3, line 8, please again clarify the need for two manipulators that perform the same.
Claim 4, please clarify whether “a display” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited display.
Claim 4, line 4, please clarify whether “a correspondence display” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited correspondence display.
Claim 5, line 5, please clarify whether “a setting manipulator” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited setting manipulator.
Claim 6, line 3, please clarify to what the waveform is related, given there is no mention of any audio inputs or data.
Claim 6, lines 4-5, please clarify whether “a setting manipulator” is the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited setting manipulator.
Claim 6, lines 6-7, please clarify whether “a timbre parameter” is related to the previously recite timbre parameter.
Claim 7, line 3, please clarify whether “a timbre” is related to the previously recited timbre.
For all the multiple mentions of elements (i.e. multiple setting manipulators, correspondence displays, timbres, parameters, etc.), if they are indeed intended to be different elements, please clarify their relationships to one another.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 15-20 recite displaying data. These limitations are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and includes no recitation of computer/processing components, or display means.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
At present, the closest prior art of record are the Japanese publications JP H03-67398 U and JP H10-116081 A, the US patent application publication to Yamada et al. (US 2017/0004811), and the US patents to Brown et al. (10,152,300) and Garncarz (10,446,129).
However, none of the cited references teach a displayed correspondence between two manipulators which perform the same function.
Once a better understanding of the preset invention is received, further search and consideration of the prior art will be conducted.
Conclusion
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 09/14/2026
Prosecution Insights