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)(4) because:
Reference character “33” has been used to designate an output (paragraphs [0089], [0092] and [0097]) and a held signal (paragraph [0091]).
Reference character “34” has been used to designate periods (Figure 13, paragraph [0090]), a burst of pulses (Figure 15b, paragraph [0100]) and a drive signal (Figures 16a and 16b, paragraphs [0101]-[0104]).
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.
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 Figure 7, reference numbers 12’ and 13’ 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.
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, lines 6-7, please clarify whether “an RF signal” is related to or different from the previously cited RF signal in line 4.
If related, please clarify how then the RF signal in line 6, can be output from either the passive load or the active circuit, while the RF signal in line 4 is only output from the active circuit.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the RF pulses" and “the predetermined number”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no mention of such elements in preceding claim 1. Such elements are however mentioned in claim 6.
Claim 8, please clarify whether “the measurement” in line 2 refers to the measuring of the held peak level in preceding claim 1.
Claims 9 and 10, similar to claim 8, please clarify whether “the measurement” (claim 9, line 2) and “said measuring” (claim 10, line 4) refer to the measuring of the held peak level in preceding claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "said resonant circuits" (line 2), “each measurement circuit” (line 4) and “each of the active circuits” (lines 4-5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no indication of multiples of any of these elements in preceding claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "”the measurements”" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of multiple measurements.
Further in claim 11, please clarify whether “respective measurement circuits” relate to “each measurement circuit” recited in preceding claim 10.
Claim 12, the recitation that the apparatus is a keyboard for a musical instrument, a computer keyboard, a computer touchpad, a foot pedal preferably for a musical instrument, or a drum, followed by the explicit statement that the musical instrument is an electric or acoustic piano, organ, guitar or drum is indefinite. Please clarify how a recitation specifying a musical instrument relates, or is applicable, if the apparatus is computer related as recited in the first lines.
Claim 13, the recitation that the key comprises either the passive load or active circuit, and that the reference part comprises the other, is indefinite, Please clarify whether the key and reference part relate to the resonant circuit, which is also recited as comprising the passive and active circuit.
Claim 14, please clarify whether “a resonant circuit” is related to or different from the previous recited resonant circuit.
Similarly, in claims 16 and 17, please clarify if the “a resonant circuit” recited in each claim is related to or different from either the resonant circuit of claim 1 or claim 14.
Further in claim 14, please clarify how the passive load can comprise a resonant circuit when a resonant circuit is recited to comprise the passive load in preceding claim 1.
Similarly, in claims 16 and 17, please clarify how the active circuit can comprise a resonant circuit when a resonant circuit is recited to comprise the active circuit in preceding claim 1.
Claim 20, the recitation “enabling a driver to drive an active circuit with an RF signal having a frequency that is a resonant frequency of the active circuit or a passive load” is indefinite. It is unclear how the active circuit is driven based on a frequency of itself.
Further in claim 20, line 5, please clarify whether “an RF output” is related to the RF signal recited in line 2.
The remaining claims, not specifically addressed, depend from, and therefore include, the rejected limitations outlined above.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 recites sampling, detecting and measuring data and elements. 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 a tangible functional output. There is no practical application of the elements other than the driver. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, even if the claim were to recite an additional element such as – using a processor to perform the above steps, the processor would be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of an element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are believed to be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Presently the closest prior art of record are the British publications to Clark et al. (GB 2570533 A and GB 249230 A), the European publication to Thorn (EP 2558822 A1), the Chinese publication to Clark et al. (CN 111512360 A) and the US patent application publications to Kernhof et al. (US 2024/0142215) and Weaver et al. (US 2012/062499).
Once a better understanding of that which the Applicant deems as their invention is received, a further search and consideration of the prior art will be conducted.
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 06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights