DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1–11 in application number 18791484. Claims 1–11 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claim 6 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6. Claim 6 recites in which the first thickness, the second thickness and the third thickness impose a radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate of another desired radius. Claim 6 presents two issues that make the claim indefinite.
First, the antecedent basis for “first thickness,” “second thickness,” and “third thickness” in claim 6 is unclear. Although these terms are introduced in claim 4, claim 6 does not depend from claim 4, but instead depend from claims 3, 2 and 1. Claim 1 recites “a first step having a single thickness,” “a second step having a thickness,” and “a third step having . . . a single thickness” and it is not clear if the elements of claim 6 were intended to refer to these elements in claim 1, or perhaps some other elements in claims 1, 2, or 3, or if claim 6 was intended to depend from claim 4. As a result of this ambiguity, one of skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 6.
Second, the meaning of “impose a radius of curvature . . . of another desired radius” is unclear. As noted, claim 6 depends from claim 3 which depends from claim 1 via claim 2. Claims 2 and 3 establish the context that claim 6 implicitly pertains to the second step of the stepped plate. With respect to the second step of the stepped plate, claim 1 recites, “the plurality of stepped thicknesses . . . takes the form of a radius of curvature matching the radius of curvature of the fretboard of an electric guitar.” It is not clear how the radius of curvature imposed by the steps across the second step of the plate can both “match[] the radius of curvature of the fretboard” and also match “another desired radius.” This makes the scope of claim 6 unclear as one of skill in the art could not determine what radius is required within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6. Claim 6 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites in which the first thickness, the second thickness and the third thickness impose a radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate of another desired radius.
Claim 6 does not incorporate all of the limitations of claim 1 because one possible interpretation of “impose a radius of curvature . . . of another desired radius” is that the desired radius in claim 6 is different from the radius recited in claim 1. More specifically, with respect to the second step of the stepped plate, claim 1 recites, “the plurality of stepped thicknesses . . . takes the form of a radius of curvature matching the radius of curvature of the fretboard of an electric guitar.” In other words, claim 6 does not include the limitation that the radius of curvature of the steps in the second section of the stepped plate recited in claim 1 matching the radius of curvature of the fretboard of an electric guitar. Because claim 6 fails to include all of the limitations of the claims from which it depends, it does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rose (US 2013/0291705 A1).
Regarding claim 8. Rose teaches:
8. A bridge for an electric guitar comprising a stepped plate in which the stepped plate has a length, a width and at least two steps of different thicknesses in which a least one of the two steps has a thickness across its width which varies in the shape of a desired radius of curvature. [Rose Figures 7, 9, and 13 show a cross section of a base plate that has different thicknesses or “steps” along the length (Rose Figs. 7, 9, and 16); Rose Figure 3 reproduced below shows a plurality of stepped thicknesses across the width of the bridge plate, shown by annotated shaded regions “D,” “E,” and “F” that define a radius of curvature across the width (i.e., left-to-right as shown)]
PNG
media_image1.png
622
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2008/0141843 A1) in view of Rose (US 2013/0291705 A1) in view of Dunwoodie (US 2010/0236375 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Thompson—which like the present invention pertains to the structure of a bridge for a guitar—teaches:
1. A bridge for an electric guitar comprising: [FIGS. 3–6 are perspective, top, side and end views of the string bender (i.e., bridge) of FIGS. 1-2, FIGS. 3-4 showing the complete assembly with mounting plate, handle, and adjustable stop, and FIGS. 5-6 showing only the mounting plate and attached flanges/pivots. (Thompson 0039); The illustrated string bender device 30 according to FIGS. 1-7 is for a Fender Mexican Telecaster brand guitar or similar configuration. It uses existing bridge parts from the guitar being retrofit. (i.e., for an electric guitar) (Thompson 0048)]
a [segmented] plate suitable to function as a base plate of the bridge; [a mounting plate with an anchor for anchoring guitar strings to a guitar body (Thompson, abstract); See annotated Figure 4 of Thompson below illustrating a segmented plate with segments “A,” “B,” and “C” and the plate functions as a bridge for an electric guitar]
PNG
media_image2.png
452
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which the [segmented]plate has a length and a width and further comprises a plurality of [segments]along its length in which the plurality of steps further comprises: [See annotated Figure 4 of Thompson above showing a plurality of segments “A,” “B,” and “C” along its length]
a first [segment]having a single thickness across its length and width and in which is disposed a cut-away portion sized, shaped and positioned to fit around a pickup for an electric guitar; [The first section 40 includes an angled aperture 42 for receiving the sound pickup on the guitar body 39. (Thompson 0046, referring to Figure 4)]
Although Thompson discloses a segmented guitar bridge having several segments each with a specific purpose such as mounting over a pickup, mounting tuning blocks, and anchoring strings for tuning and intonation purposes, Thompson does not expressly disclose:
a stepped plate suitable to function as a base plate of a bridge;
a plurality of guitar string saddles;
a plurality of intonation screws; and
a plurality of intonation springs;
a second step having a thickness along its length thicker than the thickness of the first step and having a plurality of stepped thicknesses across its width in which the plurality of stepped thicknesses across the width of the bridge takes the form of a radius of curvature matching the radius of curvature of the fretboard of an electric guitar on which the bridge is optimized for use, and further comprising a plurality of guitar string saddle grooves sized and shaped to retain a plurality of guitar string saddles; and
a third step having a length sufficient to retain a plurality of guitar strings under tension and a single thickness thicker than the thickest portion of the second step of the stepped plate and in which is disposed a plurality of intonation screw mounts;
in which a plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts are disposed in and through the second step and third step of the stepped plate
in which each of the plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts further comprise a shaped aperture having a cupped shape and rounded edges and in which each of the plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts is aligned with a guitar string saddle groove and an intonation screw mount;
in which the thickness of the second step of the stepped plate is constant along the length of the second step of the stepped plate;
in which the plurality of intonation screw mounts is disposed in the third step of the stepped plate such that each of the plurality of intonation screw mounts is aligned across the width of the third step of the stepped plate to align with a guitar string saddle disposed in a guitar string saddle groove of the second step of the stepped plate; and
in which the plurality of intonation screw mounts is disposed in the third step of the stepped plate in the form of a radius of curvature matching the radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate to permit the aligned installation of a guitar string saddle in a guitar string saddle groove by the use of an intonation screw and intonation screw spring threaded into a threaded intonation screw hole in the guitar string saddle through an intonation screw mount of the third step.
Nonetheless, Rose—which like the present invention is directed to an apparatus for anchoring guitar strings to an electric guitar—teaches:
a stepped plate suitable to function as a base plate of a bridge; [Rose Figures 7, 9, and 13 show a cross section of a base plate that has different thicknesses or “steps” along the length (Rose Figs. 7, 9, and 16)]
a plurality of guitar string saddles; [locking each string 15 through a set of saddle assemblies 50 (Rose 0043)]
a plurality of intonation screws; and [In this regard, the string lock screw 84 having a threaded region adjacent to the screw head engages the body portion 64 of the rear block element 52 in the rear and extends into the central recess 74. (Rose 0064); Specifically, if the tension on a given string is to be changed, i.e., if the string is to be fine tuned, the fine tuner screw 94 is rotated clockwise (moving downwardly) to increase the string tension and hence string pitch, and counterclockwise (moving upwardly) to decrease the string tension and hence string pitch. (Rose 0070)]
a plurality of intonation springs; [the tremolo device 20 is also provided with fine tuner tension springs, left 118 and right 120, for urging each of the string lock screws 84 upwardly against the respective fine tuner screws 94. (Rose 0068)]
a second step having [. . .] a plurality of stepped thicknesses across its width in which the plurality of stepped thicknesses across the width of the bridge takes the form of a radius of curvature matching the radius of curvature of the fretboard of an electric guitar on which the bridge is optimized for use, and further comprising a plurality of guitar string saddle grooves sized and shaped to retain a plurality of guitar string saddles; and [Rose Figure 3 reproduced below shows a plurality of stepped thicknesses across the width of the bridge plate, shown by annotated shaded regions “D,” “E,” and “F”]
PNG
media_image3.png
622
1100
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in which the thickness of the second step of the stepped plate is constant along the length of the second step of the stepped plate; [Rose Figure 13 shows an exploded view of bridge plate in which the longitudinal surfaces of the stepped surfaces on the bridge plate, near numerals 96 and 98, are uniform. Figure 13 is reproduced below for convenient reference.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flat, segmented bridge plate disclosed by Thompson to incorporate a segment with stepped heights for the saddle blocks, as taught by Rose. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature because it provides more uniform spacing between each string and the neck of the guitar. In other words, one of skill in the art would know that the fretboard of a guitar neck is not flat across the strings, therefore if the strings lie in a single plane, the action of each string is different relative to the fretboard. Accordingly, a structure that puts each string’s tuning block a particular distance from the face of the guitar body can provide more uniform string-to-neck spacing and give the musician a more consistent feel across the strings when playing.
The combination of Thompson in view of Rose does not expressly disclose a second step having a thickness along its length thicker than the thickness of the first step. However, the examiner finds that one of skill in the art would have understood from Rose as a whole that the thickness of the second step along the length of the bridge plate of Thompson would necessarily be thicker than the thickness of the first step as this would be necessary for the second segment to accommodate the steps across the width of the plate while providing the necessary clearance for the strings across the first segment. In other words, one of skill in the art would have understood that the natural outcome when modifying the plate of Thompson to accommodate the tuning block steps of Rose to achieve the benefits noted above, is that the second segment would be thicker than the first segment by some degree.
However, the combination of Thompson in view of Rose does not disclose:
a third step having a length sufficient to retain a plurality of guitar strings under tension and a single thickness thicker than the thickest portion of the second step of the stepped plate and in which is disposed a plurality of intonation screw mounts;
in which a plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts are disposed in and through the second step and third step of the stepped plate
in which each of the plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts further comprise a shaped aperture having a cupped shape and rounded edges and in which each of the plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts is aligned with a guitar string saddle groove and an intonation screw mount;
Nonetheless, Dunwoodie—which like the present invention is directed to hardware to secure strings to the body of an electric guitar—teaches:
a third step having a length sufficient to retain a plurality of guitar strings under tension and a single thickness thicker than the thickest portion of the second step of the stepped plate and in which is disposed a plurality of intonation screw mounts; [FIG. 3 an exemplary top and front view of a tailpiece according to an embodiment of the present invention. (Dunwoodie 0022); Referring now to FIG. 3, top and front views of an exemplary, new guitar tailpiece 200 are shown. The guitar tailpiece 200 comprises an elongate base piece 212 that is formed of standard metal, such as steel or brass. A top 214 and bottom 216 surfaces of the tailpiece 200 are generally curved in order to aesthetically match the surface curve of a guitar upon which the tailpiece 200 is to be mounted. . . . These string holes 218 also have chamfered edges or indentations 218a of a slightly larger diameter on both the front and rear entries of the string holes 218 to accommodate small balls which are manufactured at the ends of steel strings used in some guitars. (Dunwoodie 0025)]
NOTE: The examiner finds that one of skill in the art would have understood from Dunwoodie as a whole that reliance on the string-end balls to anchor the strings in the string retention structure implies that the string retention structure is thicker than the guitar string saddles. This arrangement is also implied in the structure shown by Thompson wherein flange 32 for anchoring guitar strings in the third segment of the plate protrudes away from the face of the guitar body farther than the plate in the second segment of the plate. (Thompson Figs. 3–6).
in which a plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts are disposed in and through the second step and third step of the stepped plate [Several longitudinal string holes 218, generally evenly spaced apart along the width of the tailpiece 200, are formed or machined through the tailpiece 200. These string holes 218 also have chamfered edges or indentations 218a of a slightly larger diameter on both the front and rear entries of the string holes 218 to accommodate small balls which are manufactured at the ends of steel strings used in some guitars. (Dunwoodie 0025)]
in which each of the plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts further comprise a shaped aperture having a cupped shape and rounded edges and in which each of the plurality of through-bridge and through-body guitar string mounts is aligned with a guitar string saddle groove and an intonation screw mount; [A top 214 and bottom 216 surfaces of the tailpiece 200 are generally curved in order to aesthetically match the surface curve of a guitar upon which the tailpiece 200 is to be mounted. (Dunwoodie 0025)]
in which the plurality of intonation screw mounts is disposed in the third step of the stepped plate such that each of the plurality of intonation screw mounts is aligned across the width of the third step of the stepped plate to align with a guitar string saddle disposed in a guitar string saddle groove of the second step of the stepped plate; and [A top 214 and bottom 216 surfaces of the tailpiece 200 are generally curved in order to aesthetically match the surface curve of a guitar upon which the tailpiece 200 is to be mounted. (Dunwoodie 0025)]
in which the plurality of intonation screw mounts is disposed in the third step of the stepped plate in the form of a radius of curvature matching the radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate to permit the aligned installation of a guitar string saddle in a guitar string saddle groove by the use of an intonation screw and intonation screw spring threaded into a threaded intonation screw hole in the guitar string saddle through an intonation screw mount of the third step. [A top 214 and bottom 216 surfaces of the tailpiece 200 are generally curved in order to aesthetically match the surface curve of a guitar upon which the tailpiece 200 is to be mounted. (Dunwoodie 0025)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the segmented plate with a first segment to accommodate a pickup and second segment with steps to position strings in line with guitar fretboard curvature as taught by the combination of Thompson in view of Rose to further include a segment with guitar string anchors that is thicker than the second segment of the plate and in which the string anchor holes are also arranged to accommodate the radius of the fretboard. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to arrange the third segment, string holes, and intonation screws in this manner because they would be motivated to make the tension on each tuning block more uniform so that the critical contact point of the string on the tuning block can be better controlled for adjusting harmonic tuning at the bridge (Rose 0045). Additionally, the increased thickness of this segment of the bridge plate relative to the first and second segments would stabilize intonation of the guitar by providing more material to resist the tension force from the taught guitar string and again, give the musician better control over the intonation through the adjustment screws at the bridge or the tuning machines at the opposite end of the string.
Regarding claim 2. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Thompson shows a bridge plate with structure to accommodate six strings. In addition, specific to the second segement, Rose further teaches:
2. The bridge of claim 1 in which the number of guitar saddle grooves disposed on the second step of the stepped plate is six. [Rose Figure 3, above, shows six stepped string saddle locations]
One of skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature of Rose because one of skill in the art would have known that six-string guitars are the most common type of guitar. Making the bridge plate with six string string attachments means that there is a larger market for selling the apparatus to musicians and manufacturers. However, one of skill in the art would have also been aware that the number of string attachments is a matter of design choice because guitars and other stringed instruments can have from one to many strings and that other common string numbers include two (erhu) three (beginner guitars), four (bass guitars, ukeleles, classical stringed instruments, banjo), five (bass guitars, banjos), and seven or more (“Charlie Hunter” style guitars with 3 bass strings and 3 or more guitar strings on one neck, 12-string guitars, etc.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the bridge plate for six strings as taught by Rose.
Regarding claim 3. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie teaches the limitations of claim 2 above. Rose further teaches:
3. The bridge of claim 2 in which the six guitar saddles of the second step of the stepped plate are sequentially numbered across the width of the second step of the stepped plate and further in which the six saddle grooves of the second step of the stepped plate may be paired as the first saddle groove and the sixth saddle groove, the second saddle groove and the fifth saddle groove, and the third saddle groove and fourth saddle groove. [Rose Figure 3, above, shows six stepped string saddle locations across the width, a “D” pair, an “E” pair, and an “F” pair].
The motivation for combining Rose with Thompson for claim 3 is the same as provided for claim 2. Additionally, one of skill in the art would have understood that the geometry of the fretboard radius is typically symmetrical, and that as shown in Rose a symmetrical structure for the steps of the tuning blocks would, for a typical guitar, put the Low E and High E (first and sixth strings) at the same height, the A and B (second and fifth strings) at the same height greater than the Low E and High E, and the D and G (third and fourth strings) at the same height greater than the A and B strings. The examiner notes that the labels assigned to the stepped sections across the width of the plate do not affect the structure of the plate and as such do not distinguish the claimed structure from the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to label or pair the steps in the manner taught by Rose.
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie teaches the limitations of claim 3 above. Rose further teaches:
4. The bridge of claim 3 in which the thickness across the width of the second step is a first thickness for the first and sixth saddle groove, a second thickness for the second and fifth saddle grooves and a third thickness for the third and fourth saddles grooves; and further in which the third thickness is thicker than the second thickness and the second thickness is thicker than the first thickness. [Rose Figure 3, above, shows six stepped string saddle locations across the width, a “D” pair, an “E” pair, and an “F” pair with the thickness of the step for each pair being the same]
The motivation for combining Rose with Thompson is the same as provided for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie teaches the limitations of claim 3 above. Rose further teaches:
6. The bridge of claim 3 in which the first thickness, the second thickness and the third thickness impose a radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate of another desired radius. [Rose Figure 3 above shows the steps for the string saddle supports form a curve across the width of the bridge plate. By definition the curve has a radius or “another” radius.]
NOTE: The examiner notes that claim 6 raises issues under both 112(b) and 112(d), and that due to these issues the scope of the claim cannot be determined. Rose is cited for purposes of compact prosecution.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Colas (US 2018/0012576 A1).
Regarding claim 5. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie teaches the limitations of claim 4 above. Rose further teaches:
5. The bridge of claim 4 in which the first thickness, the second thickness and third thickness together impose a radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate [. . .]. [Rose Figure 3 above shows the steps for the string saddle supports form a curve across the width of the bridge plate]
However, the combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie does not specifically disclose that the radius of curvature is 9.5 inches.
Nonetheless, Colas—which like the present invention is directed to improvements to electric guitar string saddle architecture—teaches:
in which the first thickness, the second thickness and third thickness together impose a radius of curvature across the width of the second step of the stepped plate of 9.5 inches. [The offset of the saddle 240 was configured to compensate for various fret board radii ranging from 7.25″ to 9.5″ and also as flat as a 12″. These are the most commonly seen fretboard radii. (Colas, 0079)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bridge plate structure having a radius of curvature defined by the steps on which the tuning blocks sit as shown by the above combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie, to make that radius of curvature 9.5-inches as taught by Colas because it is one of “the most commonly seen fretboard radii” (Colas 0079) and would make the combined apparatus more marketable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of McCabe (US 9,691,364 B1).
Regarding claim 7. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie teaches the limitations of claim 3 above. The combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie does not disclose:
in which one or more shims may be disposed in one or more guitar string saddle grooves of the second step of the stepped plate in order to raise the position of a guitar string saddle disposed in each of the one or more guitar string saddle grooves.
Nonetheless, McCabe—which like the present invention is directed to electric guitar bridge structures—teaches:
7. The bridge of claim 3 in which one or more shims may be disposed in one or more guitar string saddle grooves of the second step of the stepped plate in order to raise the position of a guitar string saddle disposed in each of the one or more guitar string saddle grooves. [Shims, for example, can be added between the base plate and the upper leg or between the support plate and the lower leg to provide foe re-tensioning to initial position. Additionally, lever mechanisms, thumbwheels or setscrews, for example, can be positioned operable to tilt the position of the dual function spring to globally tune the spring force. (McCabe c14:2–7); A support frame or plate threadedly connected to the body to adjustably support the integrated apparatus is preferred. 45 Adjustment features could alternatively include shims, for example, to reposition the range of string height adjustment created by the relative position of the legs in the integrated apparatus. (McCabe c15:44–49)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate shims, as taught by McCabe, under the tuning blocks in the bridge plate taught by the above combination of Thompson in view of Rose in view of Dunwoodie. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature of McCabe so that a luthier can set up specific individual string heights for an individual musician who prefers one or more strings to have a height above the fretboard different than one that simply follows a single radius of curvature.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rose as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Smith (US 6,143,967 B1).
Regarding claim 9. Rose teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above. Rose further teaches various holes in the saddle block steps for purposes such as securing the bridge plate and adjusting tension or other parameters. Thus, Rose shows it was known to include recesses in the steps for structural retention. (Rose 0068 and Figure 13).
However, Rose does not specifically further teach:
9. The bridge of claim 8 in which the at least one step having a thickness across its width which varies in the shape of a desired radius of curvature further comprises a plurality of grooves sized and shaped to retain one each of a plurality of guitar string saddles.
Nonetheless, Smith—which like the present invention is directed to a base plate fastened to a guitar with structures for holding strings—teaches:
9. The bridge of claim 8 in which the at least one step having a thickness across its width which varies in the shape of a desired radius of curvature further comprises a plurality of grooves sized and shaped to retain one each of a plurality of guitar string saddles. [There is a block 51 on the bridge plate section 41 near the bridge back end 45. The block 51 defines a number of longitudinal slits 53. At the end of each slit 53 in line with the plate section back end is a depression 55. There is a slit and depression 55 for each guitar string 13. (Smith, c5:39–43 and Figure 3 reproduced below for reference)]
PNG
media_image4.png
560
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the retention recesses taught by Rose to form slits that guide the saddle blocks longitudinally in line with the strings to avoid the tuning blocks from shifting laterally or rotating, both of which with impair the ability of a luthier or musician to tune the strings and maintain intonation during playing.
Claims 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rose, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Colas (US 2018/0012576 A1).
Regarding claim 10. Rose teaches the limitations of claim 8. Rose does not disclose in which the desired radius of curvature is 9.5 inches.
Nonetheless, Colas—which like the present invention is directed to improvements to electric guitar string saddle architecture—teaches:
10. The bridge of claim 8 in which the desired radius of curvature is 9.5 inches. [The offset of the saddle 240 was configured to compensate for various fret board radii ranging from 7.25″ to 9.5″ and also as flat as a 12″. These are the most commonly seen fretboard radii. (Colas, 0079)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bridge plate structure having a radius of curvature defined by the steps on which the tuning blocks sit as shown Rose, to make that radius of curvature 9.5-inches as taught by Colas because it is one of “the most commonly seen fretboard radii” (Colas 0079) and would make the combined apparatus more marketable.
Regarding claim 11. Rose teaches the limitations of claim 8. Rose further describes the structure of its bridge plate in relation to the neck of the guitar and acknowledges that the geometry, stability, and adjustability of the structures at the bridge, including string saddles, can be critical for both playability and intonation of the instrument (Rose 0043, 0055).
However, Rose does not expressly disclose in which the desired radius of curvature is equal to the radius of curvature of the fretboard of the electric guitar on which the bridge is used.
Nonetheless, Colas—which like the present invention is directed to improvements to electric guitar string saddle architecture—teaches:
11. The bridge of claim 8 in which the desired radius of curvature is equal to the radius of curvature of the fretboard of the electric guitar on which the bridge is used. [Though intensive study, the inventor discovered this optimum offset distance of 0.043 inches provides optimum intonation compensation, amongst other advantages. For example, the inventor carefully measured the distance from the 12th fret and from the back of the bridge plate to the exact contact area on the saddle where the string was intonated. The offset of the saddle 240 was configured to compensate for various fret board radii ranging from 7.25” to 9.5” and also as flat as a 12”. These are the most commonly seen fretboard radii. (Colas 0079)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature of McCabe into the apparatus taught by Rose for the same reasons provided for claim 10.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
A musical instrument, such as a guitar, having strings across a bridge, a finger board and a nut wherein the bridge, finger board, and nut have a concave curvature. Preferably, the concave curvature is a hyperbolic curve. The resulting string arrangement is designed to minimize wrist and finger strain associated with playing the instrument. (Hall)
The bridge plate section 41 between the indented side edges 47 and near the bridge front end 43 is not flat. Rather, that portion of the bridge plate section is formed with a series of steps. For a six-string guitar, there are three steps above and between base steps 57, which are on the bridge plate section adjacent the indented side edges. Middle steps 59 lie between the base steps 57 and a highest center step 61. The steps 57, 59, and 61 are longitudinally aligned with and are symmetrical about corresponding slits 53 in the block 51. The steps are thus also symmetrical about the guitar strings 13. The bridge 17 further defines a number of longitudinal grooves 63 in the plate section steps 57, 59, and 61. The grooves 63 extend to the plate section front end 43. The grooves are symmetrical about the bridge slits 53 and the corresponding strings 13. . . .As mentioned, the bridge plate section 41 has three levels of steps 57, 59, and 61. Accordingly, the intonation blocks 65 and their respective V-grooves 70 also lie on three different levels. The heights of the steps 57, 59, 61 are set to correspond with the transverse curved plane 14 of the frets 8 and strings 13, FIG. 8. Consequently, the contact points between the strings and the intonation blocks lie along a curved line 14’ that is coplanar with the plane 14, FIG. 6. (Smith)
The present invention further provides a bridge capable of adjusting the height of the strings. It is also to be understood that the strings are preferably at different heights because they lie along the surface of an imaginary large diameter cylinder, such imaginary cylinder being generally concentric with the upper surface of the fret board. The upper fret board surface is curved, as viewed in section. Accordingly, in a preferred embodiment the upper edge of the second sidewall 16 is curved and has continuous radius from about 7 to about 14 inches, while the first side wall has a plurality of intonation screw mounting means. In certain embodiments the intonation screw mounting means are designed so as to minimize or eliminate contact with the strings. (Woodland)
The bridge in accordance with the present invention is shown in FIGS. 10 and 11. As will be recognized, the bridge is unique in that it has a transverse portion 51 and a longitudinally extending portion 52, portion 52 constituting one-half of a conventional bridge, and portion 51 constituting a conventional bridge adhered to portion 52, thereby forming a T-shaped bridge having three legs. This is a particularly advantageous arrangement because, with three legs, the location and placement thereof, and the adhering of the legs and feet thereof to the surface of top plate 23, is greatly simplified. It is well known in violin construction that the configuration of the bridge is significant because it commonly performs a filtering action which removes certain undesirable high frequencies in the process of conducting vibrations from the strings to the top plate. Thus, the configuration of portion 51 of the bridge as seen in FIG. 11 remains unchanged from that of a conventional violin, and the addition of portion 52 contributes to the ease in construction without deleterious effect to this desirable filtering action. (Baker)
FIGS. 17(a), (b) and (c) illustrate typical architectures for bridge piece 14 as optimized for string sets of four, five and six strings, however, when the present invention is constructed with slidable acoustic energy conduits 103 and 104, see FIG. 14, string sets of any number may be accommodated by adjusting the slidable acoustic energy conduits 103 and 104 along the same bridge piece 14. . . . FIGS. 18, 19, 20 and 21 show the dynamic tone engendering structure 10 of the present invention as applied to a guitar family string musical instrument, wherein the arch of the bridge is reduced to suit the requirements of the guitar family. (Clevinger)
An improved musical instrument bridge for the violin family having independently adjustable bridge saddles. Each bridge saddle has at least one height adjustment rod/screw assembly allowing each saddle independent raising and lowering in relation to the other bridge saddles. Each bridge saddle has three points of contact in the vertical plane to the bridge body improving stability in the vertical and horizontal planes of the bridge. The invention allows each string of the musical instruments in this family to be adjusted to the appropriate height required by either or both instrument player considerations and climatic conditions. The scope of the invention also allows for the use of materials other than the traditional woods by including the utilization of composite materials and lightweight metals and plastic compounds in multiple combinations thereof. (Pecanic)
A tremolo and tuning apparatus is provided for a stringed musical instrument having a body, a neck extending from the body, a nut on an end of the neck remote from the body, and a string extending over the neck. The string makes a first critical contact at a point on the nut of the instrument and a second critical contact at a point on the apparatus. The apparatus includes a mounting frame configured for mounting on the surface of the body, an attachment post secured to the body, a base plate pivotally mounted with respect to the attachment post and having a surface adapted to receive a force, a string mounting assembly mounted on the base plate for holding the string, and a resilient member assembly for engagement with the mounting frame outside the body of the instrument and supplying a force to the base plate surface. (Rose)
Acoustic saddles can be reshaped to conform to a mare ideal radius. Keep in mind the bass side should have a tiny bit more lift. Les Paul style saddle heights are more or less fixed, but, using the right tools, can be re-cut to accommodate an improved radius. Fender style saddles were designed from the get-go to be fully adjustable. This is where your fine allen keys come in handy. In every case you want to achieve a graceful curve across the top of the saddles that matches the natural radius of the instrument you’re working with. Some of the most common dimensions are 16″ – Martin; 12″ – Gibson and Epiphone; 10″ – Off-shore Fender and Squier including knock-offs; 9.5″ – Fender USA; 7.25″ – Vintage and Reissue Fender USA (guitarniche.com)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick McAtee whose telephone number is (571)272-7575. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am - 4:30pm ET.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Patrick McAtee
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
