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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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. Claims 1, 8, 9 recite a piano operative to “convert an intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information according to the set adjustment time.” The recited “each sound,” does not resolve any antecedent in the claims nor is “each sound,” clearly referenced in the claim as the musical playing information resolved does not comprise “sound,” but instructions ultimately resulting in sound. The utility of reciting “one or more sound,” such as to be generated by the musical playing information and subsequently referencing “each sound,” would redound not only to the definiteness and clarity of the independent claim but equally confer such clarity onto the claimed operations upon “each sound,” of the dependent claims. Dependent claims 2-7 do not remedy and are similarly rejected. Additionally Claim 6 recites that the permitted weakest intensity “is at which the operation delay time until a sound is generated is equal…” which renders the claim indefinite—for the purpose of the art rejection infra the claim will be conspired to recite the intensity is an operation delay time at which a sound is generated equal to the permitted delay time, that is, the substitution discussed with respect to claim 6 infra. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 8, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sasaki: 5648621 hereinafter Sa.
Regarding claim 1
Sa teaches:
An automatic playing piano configured to executes a musical performance by driving keys based on musical playing information (Sa: Abstract; Col 3:12-3:32, 7:29-7:65; Claim 1: a player piano for reproducing an original performance based on music data codes, such as by MIDI encoding and operative to energize a plurality of actuators to drive a plurality of keys using music data codes, such as claimed), the automatic playing piano comprising:
a controller including a memory storing instructions and a processor that implements the instructions (Sa: Col 3:12-3:32, Fig 6: such as that depicted in the figure) to:
set an adjustment time for adjusting a timing of driving the keys to correct a discrepancy in sound generation timing due to an operation delay time from receiving an instruction to play one sound specified by the musical playing information to generating the one sound by driving one of the keys (Sa: Col 4:1-4:5, 5:29-36, 5:54-6:7, 6:53-6:57; Fig 4, 7, 8: such as by subtracting an attack delay, or other operation delay time from a target sound generation time to determine ”initiative timing” intended to mimic or represent a lapse of time between initiation of a keypress and an impact of hammer upon a piano string wherein the system adjusts actuation based on a delay time to account for such an adjustment as depicted in the figure; <please see ¶ 29-32 of the instant specification: the instant adjustment time is considered a time interval or delay parameter used to align the timing of a generated sound with the internal timings of the musical playing information such as stored in memory and used to correct for mechanical, operational, etc. delay between an instruction to play and the sound generation, output of sound, etc.>); and
convert an intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information according to the set adjustment time (Sa: Col 3:37-3:42, Col 11:20-11:67; 12:64-13:4: Fig 4, 7, 8: such as by management of a time interval between successive note on messages determined as too short to represent the reciprocal motion of a piano hammer is increased by the CPU of the system to modify note on velocities by adding a constant value thereto to convert intensity as a function of timing analysis of the attack-delay, adjustment, etc. time value(s); <please see ¶ 29-32, 40, 41 of the instant specification: the instant recited intensity is considered an extant or intended striking force upon a key, such as encoded as a note-on type velocity over MIDI as discussed in the specification as filed; the instant conversion of an intensity according to the adjustment time is considered a mapping of specified intensities to output intensities governed based on the set adjustment time value>).
Regarding claim 2
Sa in view of Ha teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 1, wherein the controller converts the intensity of each sound so that the intensity is greater than an intensity specified by the musical playing information for each sound in which the operation delay time exceeds the adjustment time (Sa: Col 11:20-11:32, 12:56-13:5: when attack delays exceed a stored parameter the system adds a constant to the specified note-on velocity to increase the intensity to a value greater than the intensity specified by the musical playing information, music data codes, etc.).
Regarding claims 8, 9—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
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.
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, 2, 8, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki: 5648621 hereinafter Sa further in view of Hagiwara: 20020178898 hereinafter Ha.
Regarding claim 1
Sa teaches:
An automatic playing piano configured to executes a musical performance by driving keys based on musical playing information (Sa: Abstract; Col 3:12-3:32, 7:29-7:65; Claim 1: a player piano for reproducing an original performance based on music data codes, such as by MIDI encoding and operative to energize a plurality of actuators to drive a plurality of keys using music data codes, such as claimed), the automatic playing piano comprising:
a controller including a memory storing instructions and a processor that implements the instructions (Sa: Col 3:12-3:32, Fig 6: such as that depicted in the figure) to:
set an adjustment time for adjusting a timing of driving the keys to correct a discrepancy in sound generation timing due to an operation delay time from receiving an instruction to play one sound specified by the musical playing information to generating the one sound by driving one of the keys (Sa: Col 4:1-4:5, 5:29-36, 5:54-6:7, 6:53-6:57; Fig 4, 7, 8: such as by subtracting an attack delay, or other operation delay time from a target sound generation time to determine ”initiative timing” intended to mimic or represent a lapse of time between initiation of a keypress and an impact of hammer upon a piano string wherein the system adjusts actuation based on a delay time to account for such an adjustment as depicted in the figure; <please see ¶ 29-32 of the instant specification: the instant adjustment time is considered a time interval or delay parameter used to align the timing of a generated sound with the internal timings of the musical playing information such as stored in memory and used to correct for mechanical, operational, etc. delay between an instruction to play and the sound generation, output of sound, etc.>); and
convert an intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information according to the set adjustment time (Sa: Col 3:37-3:42, Col 11:20-11:67; 12:64-13:4: Fig 4, 7, 8: such as by management of a time interval between successive note on messages determined as too short to represent the reciprocal motion of a piano hammer is increased by the CPU of the system to modify note on velocities by adding a constant value thereto to convert intensity as a function of timing analysis of the attack-delay, adjustment, etc. time value(s); <please see ¶ 29-32, 40, 41 of the instant specification: the instant recited intensity is considered an extant or intended striking force upon a key, such as encoded as a note-on type velocity over MIDI as discussed in the specification as filed; the instant conversion of an intensity according to the adjustment time is considered a mapping of specified intensities to output intensities governed based on the set adjustment time value>).
Sa may not reasonably teach merely suggest a controller driven setting of the delay parameter, such as based on automatic measurement, user input, etc., such to account for and correct an operation delay of a sound generation instruction over the period from receipt of one or more instructions to generative output of one or more sounds.
In a related field of endeavor Ha teaches a system and method for driving a player piano, solenoids thereof to executes a musical performance by driving keys based on musical playing, performance, etc. information (Ha: Abstract: ¶ 6; Fig 2), comprising:
a controller including a memory storing instructions and a processor that implements the instructions (Ha: Fig 2, 19, 20, etc.) to:
set an adjustment time (Ha: ¶ 80, 90; fig 11: system writes a new delay value as coefficient data for timing adjustment by the DSP) for adjusting a timing of driving the keys to correct a discrepancy in sound generation timing due to an operation delay time (Ha: ¶ 6, 80, 90; Fig 11: controller in receipt of an input computes a modification or adjustment to a delay value and writes as an operative delay parameter based on calculating a delay value from measured lag) from receiving an instruction to play one sound specified by the musical playing information to generating the one sound by driving one of the keys (Ha: ¶ 6, 80, 90; Fig 11: such as by measuring an interval from controllers output of play instruction for one key to the driven hammer strike representing audio output therefrom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the controller implemented delay stetting of Ha into the automatic player piano of Sa for at least the purpose of suppling the appropriate value of a delay parameter to the Sa system to thereby select delay parameters appropriate for an individual instruments strike interval; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Sa in view of Ha teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 1, wherein the controller converts the intensity of each sound so that the intensity is greater than an intensity specified by the musical playing information for each sound in which the operation delay time exceeds the adjustment time (Sa: Col 11:20-11:32, 12:56-13:5: when attack delays exceed a stored parameter the system adds a constant to the specified note-on velocity to increase the intensity to a value greater than the intensity specified by the musical playing information, music data codes, etc.). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Ha as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa and/or Ha to the modified device of Sa and Ha; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claims 8, 9—the claims are considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 3-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki: 5648621 hereinafter Sa further in view of Hagiwara: 20020178898 hereinafter Ha as applied to claims supra and further in view of Ohba: 20060213357 hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 3
Sa in view of Ha teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the controller: sets a permitted delay time for the adjustment time when the operation delay time is allowed to exceed the adjustment time, and converts the intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information according to the adjustment time and the permitted delay time.
In a related field of endeavor Oh teaches an automatic musical instrument wherein a controller operates to set a permitted delay time(s) for the adjustment time when an operation delay time is allowed to exceed the adjustment time (Oh: ¶ 74, 80: system brackets a permitted intensity deviation between a first and second threshold such as for tolerance, set a allowable deviation, etc.), and converts the intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information according to the adjustment time and the permitted delay time (Oh: ¶ 86: the mapping between input velocity and output drive parameter determined based on a primary anchor Vmin, Rmin, etc. and the tolerance thresholds Vmin1, Vmin2 which amounts to an adjustment within a bracketed, tolerance, permitted, etc. delay time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the anchor value plus tolerance value type mapping of oh into the player piano of Sa in view of Ha for at least the purpose of managing each specified sound with respect to a timing range in such a way as to managing increasingly short time adjustments; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Sa in view of Ha in view of Oh teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 3, wherein the controller converts the intensity of each sound so that the intensity is greater than an intensity specified by the musical playing information for each sound in which the operation delay time exceeds a sum of the adjustment time and the permitted delay time (Sa: Col 11:27-11:37, 11:60-11:67, 12:56-13:3: a positive constant added to an intensity, on-velocity, etc.); (Oh: 79, 86, 94, etc.: system manages the velocity against thresholds to manage output of sound using the key velocity by keeping the velocity above a minimum value). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Ha, and Oh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Ha, and/or Oh to the modified device of Sa, Ha, and Oh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Sa in view of Ha in view of Oh teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 3, wherein the controller converts the intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information so that the operation delay time from receiving an instruction to play a sound with a lowest intensity to generating the sound with the lowest intensity does not exceed the permitted delay time (Sa: Col 11:27-11:37, 11:60-11:67, 12:56-13:3: constant value added to the on velocity); (Oh: 79, 86, 94, etc.: lowest intensity value selected using a loop to iteratively adjust the value until Rmin is substituted for a decreasing velocity value such that the player does not fail to produce faint tones). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Ha, and Oh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Ha, and/or Oh to the modified device of Sa, Ha, and Oh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Sa in view of Ha in view of Oh teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 3, wherein the controller converts an intensity of the weakest sound to a permitted weakest intensity and to convert the intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information to linearly interpolate between the permitted weakest intensity and a sound generation delay start intensity, the permitted weakest intensity is at which the operation delay time until a sound is generated is equal to the permitted delay time, and the sound generation delay start intensity is at which the operation delay time until a sound is generated is equal to the adjustment time (Sa: Col 11:27-11:37, 11:60-11:67, 12:56-13:3: boosting an n velocity generates shorter attack delay reducing the overall adjusted time); (Oh: 72, 74, 79, 86, 94, etc.: lowest intensity value selected using a loop to iteratively adjust the value until Rmin is substituted for a decreasing velocity value such that the player does not fail to produce faint tones and the system further operates to interpolate among values between a weakest intensity and a greater value along a curve to manage the delay time against the thresholds thereby driving at different target values and correlating the response thereof to input intensity). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Ha, and Oh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Ha, and/or Oh to the modified device of Sa, Ha, and Oh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Sa in view of Ha in view of Oh teaches or suggests:
The automatic playing piano according to claim 3, wherein: the controller converts an intensity of the weakest sound to a permitted weakest intensity and to convert the intensity of each sound specified by the musical playing information to linearly interpolate between the permitted weakest intensity and a highest intensity, and the permitted weakest intensity is at which the operation delay time until a sound is generated is equal to the permitted delay time (Oh: 74, 80, 85, 86, etc.: system similarly manages a maximum, upper, etc. intensity, velocity, etc. to manage an upper end of the mapping providing the maximum upper value Rmax to values greater than Vmax). The claim is considered obvious over Sa as modified by Ha, and Oh as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Sa, Ha, and/or Oh to the modified device of Sa, Ha, and Oh; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights