DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 05/04/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been fully considered. Applicant amended claims 1-6, 9-14 and added new claims 15, 16.
Claim objection for claim 2 has been withdrawn in view of the amended claims filed on 05/04/2026.
35 U.S.C. 112 (b)rejection of claims 2-5, 11-14 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims filed on 05/04/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026, in pages 8-9, with respect to claim(s) 1-14, under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that reference Hamano doesn’t teach the amended limitation in claim 1, “in a case where the same input operation continues to be detected after a start of sound emission of a vowel based on a second parameter for a vowel frame in a vowel section included in the syllable, cause the sound emission of the vowel based on the second parameter to continue until the input operation is released”. Applicant further argued that the technique of Hamano et al involves two different detections (by sensor 41 a and sensor 41 b) when switching between consonant/vowel sound output. By contrast, with the structure recited in amended claim 1, a same detected input operation controls both start of output of a syllable frame and continuation of output of a vowel sound of the syllable frame after completion of output of the vowel sound. That is, the (same) input operation is used both to start sound emission of a syllable based on a first parameter and to continue emission of a vowel based on a second parameter for a vowel frame in a vowel section included in the syllable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hamano in column 7, lines 32-50, Figs. 2B, 4 illustrates when one of the keys on the keyboard 40 has started to be pressed, it reaches the different positions at different time and different sensors 41a , 41b are activated and produce consonant/vowel sound output. Here only one input is given, key is pressed only one time, one input or same input is causing two sensors to be detected. For these reasons the previous 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections by previously cited prior art of record have been maintained. Please see the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 6- 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamano et al. ( US 10504502 B2), hereinafter referenced as Hamano.
Regarding Claim 1, Hamano teaches an information processing device ( Hamano: Column 3, lines 31-35, Fig. 1, A sound control device (information processing device) correspond to the singing sound generating apparatus 1) comprising:
a controller configured to: in response to detection of an input operation [[on]] input to an operation element, cause sound emission of a syllable to start based on a first parameter for a syllable start frame ( Hamano: Column 3, lines 21-42, Fig. 1 illustrates a singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( information processing device) where CPU 10 is a central processing unit ( controller) that controls the whole singing sound generating apparatus 1. Column 4, lines 11-20, Fig.4, Keyboard 40 ( operation element) is provided as performance operator 16 of the singing sound generating apparatus 1. Column 7, lines 32-50, Figs. 2B, 4, when one of the keys on the keyboard 40 has started to be pressed and reaches the upper position, the first sensor 41a is turned on, and a sound generation instruction of the first key-on is accepted. The first syllable c1 is acquired ( step S20-S22) and the sound generation timing ( first parameter) corresponding to the consonant sound type is set. Consonant component 43a of syllable c1 ( which is “h”) is generated),
and in a case where the same input operation continues [[even]] to be detected after a start of sound emission of a vowel based on a second parameter for a vowel frame in a vowel section included in the syllable, cause the sound emission of the vowel based on the second parameter input operation is released ( Hamano: Column 7, lines 50-67, column 8, lines 1-6, Figs. 2B, 4, when the key corresponding to the key-on is pressed down to the intermediate position b and the second sensor 41b is turned on at time t2, sound generation of the vowel sound of the acquired syllable c1 is started in the sound source 13 (step S30 to step S34). “a” in the vowel component 43b is repeatedly reproduced until time t3 (second parameter) at which the finger moves away from the key corresponding to the key-on and the first sensor 41a turns from on to off).
Claim 9 is a method claim that is performed by a controller of an information processing device ( Hamano: Column 3, lines 21-42, Fig. 1 illustrates a singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( information processing device) where CPU 10 is a central processing unit ( controller) that controls the whole singing sound generating apparatus 1), performing the steps in device claim 1 above and as such, claim 9 is similar in scope and content to claim 1 and therefore, claim 9 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 1 above.
Claim 10 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim storing a program that causes a controller of an information processing device ( Hamano: Column 3, lines 21-49, Fig. 1 illustrates a singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( information processing device) where CPU 10 is a central processing unit ( controller) that controls the whole singing sound generating apparatus 1, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 11 , a RAM (Random Access Memory) 12, a data memory 18. The ROM 11 is a nonvolatile memory in which a control program and various data are stored. The RAM 12 is a volatile memory used for a work area of the CPU 10), performing the steps in device claim 1 above and as such, claim 10 is similar in scope and content to claim 1 and therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano further teaches, wherein the case where the same input operation continues to be detected includes a case where a pressed key is present in an electronic keyboard instrument ( Hamano: Column 7, lines 50-63, Figs. 2B, 4, when the key corresponding to the key-on is pressed down to the intermediate position b and the second sensor 41b is turned on at time t2, sound generation of the vowel sound of the acquired syllable c1 is started in the sound source 13 (step S30 to step S34. The envelope ENV1 is an envelope of a sustain sound in which the sustain persists till the key is pressed),
and wherein the input operation being released includes a state in which all [[the]] pressed keys are released and no key of the electronic keyboard instrument is being pressed ( Hamano: Column 7, lines 64-67, column 8, lines 1-6, Figs. 2B, 4, “a” in the vowel component 43b is repeatedly reproduced until time t3 (parameter) at which the finger moves away from the key corresponding to the key-on ( pressed key released) and the first sensor 41a turns from on to off).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano further teaches, an electronic musical instrument comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1 ( Hamano: Column 3, lines 21-35, 55-64, Fig. 1, A sound control device (information processing device) correspond to the singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( electronic musical instrument), which consists of CPU (Central Processing Unit) 10, a ROM 11 , a RAM 12, sound source 13, a sound system 14, a display unit (display) 15, a performance operator 16, a setting operator 17, a data memory 18, and a bus 19. The performance operator 16 generates performance information such as key-on and key-off, pitch, and velocity based on the on/off of the plurality of sensors, MIDI (musical instrument digital interface) message );
and a plurality of operation elements ( Hamano: Column 4, lines 34-41, Fig.4, Keyboard 40 includes a plurality of white keys 40a and black keys 40b ( operation elements)).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano further teaches, an electronic musical instrument system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1 ( Hamano: Column 3, lines 21-35, 55-64, Fig. 1, A sound control device (information processing device) correspond to the singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( electronic musical instrument), which consists of CPU (Central Processing Unit) 10, a ROM 11 , a RAM 12, sound source 13, a sound system 14, a display unit (display) 15, a performance operator 16, a setting operator 17, a data memory 18, and a bus 19. The performance operator 16 generates performance information such as key-on and key-off, pitch, and velocity based on the on/off of the plurality of sensors, MIDI (musical instrument digital interface) message. Column 14, lines 17-25, a computer system process the functions of the singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( electronic musical instrument), in a computer-readable recording medium, and reading the program recorded on this recording medium into a computer system, and executing the program);
and an electronic musical instrument including a plurality of operation elements ( Hamano: Column 4, lines 34-41, Fig.4, singing sound generating apparatus 1 ( electronic musical instrument) consists of a performance operator 16, which is keyboard 40 and includes a plurality of white keys 40a and black keys 40b ( operation elements)).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano further teaches, wherein the controller is further configured to, in a case where the syllable includes a consonant frame that follows the vowel frame ( Hamano: Column 5, lines 31-50, Fig.3A, CPU 10 reads out "ha" which is the first syllable c1 of the designated lyrics, the syllable c1 is composed of a consonant "h" and a vowel "a", and is a syllable starting with the consonant "h" and continuing with the vowel "a" after the consonant "h"):
in response to all input operations to the operation element being released while the sound emission of the vowel based on the second parameter is being caused to continue, perform (i) a sound emission process of a consonant based on the consonant frame that follows the vowel frame and (ii) a muting process with respect to the sound emission process of the consonant ( Hamano: Column 9, lines 15-41, Fig.4 (d), sound emission of consonant 44a is followed by the vowel frame 44b. At time t7 (key-off) at which the finger moves away from the key corresponding to the key-on n2 and the first sensor 41a turns from on to off. When the CPU 10 detects that the key corresponding to the key-on n2 is turned off at time t7, a key-off process is performed to mute the sound and as a result, sound generation is stopped)
Regarding Claim 16, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 15. Hamano further teaches, wherein the sound emission process of the consonant and the muting process are performed simultaneously ( Hamano: Column 13, lines 14-43, Fig.6C, in the case a finger accidentally has touched a key, even if the first sensor 41a responds and is turned on, sound generation is stopped at the consonant sound as long as the key is not pressed down to the second sensor 41b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 2-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano et al. ( US 10504502 B2), hereinafter referenced as Hamano, in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20190318712 A1), hereinafter referenced as Nakamura.
Regarding Claim 2, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano fails to explicitly teach, wherein the controller is configured to output the first and second parameters to a vocal synthesizer of an electronic musical instrument, cause the vocal synthesizer to generate sound waveform data based on the first and second parameters, and cause a sound based on the generated sound waveform data to be emitted.
However, Nakamura does teach the claimed, wherein the controller is configured to output the first and second parameters to a vocal synthesizer of an electronic musical instrument ( Nakamura: Para.[0030], Fig. 2, the electronic keyboard instrument 100 consists of a central processing unit 201 ( controller), a sound source large-scale integrated circuit (LSI) 204, a voice synthesis LSI 205. Para.[0035], [0037], [0039], Fig. 3 illustrates the voice synthesis LSI 205 which includes a voice training section 301 and a voice synthesis section 302. The voice synthesis LSI 205 is input with music data 215 , information relating to lyric text data, pitch, duration, and starting frame ( first and second parameters), instructed by the CPU 201. With this, the voice synthesis LSI 205 synthesizes and outputs singing voice inference data for a given singer 217),
cause the vocal synthesizer to generate sound waveform data based on the first and second parameters ( Nakamura: Para.[0044], [0048], Fig. 3, The voice synthesis section 302 includes a vocalization model unit 308 which includes a sound source generator 309 and a synthesis filter 310. The sound source generator 309, generates a sound source signal that periodically repeats at a fundamental frequency (FO) contained in the sound source information 319),
and cause a sound based on the generated sound waveform data to be emitted ( Nakamura: Para.[0048], Fig. 3, The synthesis filter 310 forms a digital filter that models the vocal tract on the basis of a spectral information 318 sequence sequentially input thereto from the acoustic model unit 306, and using the sound source signal input from the sound source generator 309 as an excitation signal, generates and outputs singing voice inference data for a given singer 217 in the form of a digital signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nakamura’s teaching of electronic musical instrument, into the method of a sound control device, taught by Hamano, because, the parameter generation algorithm that employs dynamic features, would allow the quality of voice synthesis to be improved.(Nakamura, Para.[0059]).
Claim 11 is a method claim performing the steps in device claim 2 above and as such, claim 11 is similar in scope and content to claim 2 and therefore, claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano fails to explicitly teach, wherein the first and second parameters are parameters inferred by a learned model generated by machine learning of a human voice.
However, Nakamura does teach the claimed, wherein the first and second parameters are parameters inferred by a learned model generated by machine learning of a human voice ( Nakamura: Para.[0039],[0041], [0043], Fig. 3 illustrates the voice synthesis LSI 205 which includes a voice training section 301 and a voice synthesis section 302. The voice training section 301 includes a training text analysis unit 303, a training acoustic feature extraction unit 304, and a model training unit 305. The training acoustic feature extraction unit 304 receives singing voice data 312 ( first and second parameters) of a given singer sang the aforementioned lyric text and extracts and outputs a training acoustic feature sequence 314 representing the singing voice data for a given singer 312. The model training unit 305 outputs, as training result 315, model parameters expressing the acoustic model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nakamura’s teaching of electronic musical instrument, into the method of a sound control device, taught by Hamano, because, the parameter generation algorithm that employs dynamic features, would allow the quality of voice synthesis to be improved.(Nakamura, Para.[0059]).
Claim 12 is a method claim performing the steps in device claim 3 above and as such, claim 12 is similar in scope and content to claim 3 and therefore, claim 12 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano fails to explicitly teach, wherein the first and second parameters each include a spectrum parameter.
However, Nakamura does teach the claimed, wherein the first and second parameters each include a spectrum parameter ( Nakamura: Para.[0048], Fig. 3, The acoustic features expressed by the training acoustic feature sequence 314 and the acoustic feature sequence 317 include spectral information that models the vocal tract (first and second parameters) of a person, and sound source information that models the vocal chords of a person. A mel-cepstrum, line spectral pairs (LSP), or the like may be employed for the spectral parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nakamura’s teaching of electronic musical instrument, into the method of a sound control device, taught by Hamano, because, the parameter generation algorithm that employs dynamic features, would allow the quality of voice synthesis to be improved.(Nakamura, Para.[0059]).
Claim 13 is a method claim performing the steps in device claim 4 above and as such, claim 13 is similar in scope and content to claim 4 and therefore, claim 13 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 5, Hamano teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Hamano fails to explicitly teach, wherein in response to input of a change instructing operation for a tone of a sound to be emitted, the input of the change instructing operation being made by a user at a timing including a timing during a performance, the controller changes the first and second parameters to parameters for another tone.
However, Nakamura does teach the claimed, wherein in response to input of a change instructing operation for a tone of a sound to be emitted, the input of the change instructing operation being made by a user at a timing including a timing during a performance, the controller changes the first and second parameters to parameters for another tone ( Nakamura: Para.[0062]-[0064], Fig. 5B illustrates a scenario where the pitch G4 specified by a user pressing a key on the keyboard at timing t3, which corresponds to an original (correct) vocalization timing, does not match the third pitch B4 that should have been vocalized at timing t3. CPU controls the progression of lyrics and the progression of automatic accompaniment has been stopped at timing t3 in FIG. 5B, if the user specifies the pitch B4 at a timing t3' ( changing parameter), which matches the third pitch B4 that should have been specified, the CPU 201 will output the "i/in" (third character(s)') singing voice in the "Ki/twin" (the third character(s )) lyric data corresponding to the third pitch B4, for which sound was supposed to be produced at timing t3, and resumes the progression of lyrics and the progression of automatic accompaniment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nakamura’s teaching of electronic musical instrument, into the method of a sound control device, taught by Hamano, because, the parameter generation algorithm that employs dynamic features, would allow the quality of voice synthesis to be improved.(Nakamura, Para.[0059]).
Claim 14 is a method claim performing the steps in device claim 5 above and as such, claim 14 is similar in scope and content to claim 5 and therefore, claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale as presented against claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADIRA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)272-4048. The examiner can normally be reached M-F,7:30 am-5:00pm.
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, Paras D. Shah can be reached on (571) 270-1650. 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.
/NADIRA SULTANA/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
07/02/2026
Prosecution Insights