DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims claim 1 and 12 and addition of claims 25-27 are acknowledged.
These amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-20, and 23-25 and these rejection are accordingly withdrawn. The amendments to claim 1 also overcome the claim objection of claim 1, and this objection is accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/05/25, with respect to the amendments to claim 1 overcoming the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive and this rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each of the first and second teeth being symmetrical with respect to a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the respective toothed wheel of which the tooth forms part” and “the tooth” does not precisely have antecedent basis and it is suggested to remove the phrase “of which the tooth forms part” from this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-20, and 23-27 all require a limitation for “the primitive backlash (J) of the gearing”. The term “primitive backlash” is not a standard term of art that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand. Because this terminology is not standard, it is not clear on its face if it requires proper antecedent basis or if it is an inherent property of the gearing.
Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See MPEP 2173.05(a).
Page 7, lines 13-20, of the specification recites:
“By "primitive backlash J" is meant, for a nominal axial center distance e, a maximum arc length l along which can travel a point on a primitive circle (RP2 in figure 2) of the first wheel R10 relative to the second wheel R20 immobilized in a specific orientation, as defined by the standard ISO 1122- 1 :1998. Thus the backlash J is a length that may in particular be expressed in millimeters. The backlash J may also be expressed as a function of the pitch p or of the modulus m of the wheels R10, R20 forming part of the gearing E0.”
By defining the primitive backlash in the context as a maximum arc length for the backlash between the gearing this provides support for the primitive backlash being an inherent property not requiring prior antecedent basis to refer to it as “the primitive backlash as recited in the claims.
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daout (US 7633837 B2).
Regarding Claim 26, Daout discloses a gearing for a horological mechanism, comprising:
a first toothed wheel (41) including first teeth (42), and
a second toothed wheel (44) including second teeth (45) [fig. 18],
each of the first and second teeth being symmetrical with respect to a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the respective toothed wheel of which the tooth forms part [fig. 18, figs. 1-16 show that the gear teeth are symmetrical in this manner],
the profile of each of the first teeth of the first toothed wheel and second teeth of the second toothed wheel comprising a respective functional portion (part of teeth that come into contact) [fig. 18], configured to cooperate at least in part in meshing of the gearing through contact with at least one tooth of the other of the first and second toothed wheel [fig. 18, col. 5 lines 28-44], wherein the respective functional portion is a zone of the profile having a shape defined by a circular arc in the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis of the respective toothed wheel of which the respective tooth forms part [fig. 18] (42a and 42b have a circular arc at points P and profile of teeth 45 has a curve at functional surfaces), wherein a functional surface of each of the first and second teeth is oriented parallel to the rotation axis of the respective toothed wheel of which the tooth forms part [fig. 18] (at some point along the functional portions of both sets of teeth the surface is parallel to the rotation axis),
each of the first and second teeth being conformed so that the primitive backlash (J) of the gearing is either (i) 0 with no prestressing of the teeth [fig. 18, col. 5 lines 38-44, elastic structure compensates for backlash and minimizing to zero imposed by elastic element] or (ii) more than 0 and less than 0.3 · m for the nominal axial center distance (e) of the gearing, where m is the modulus of the wheel of which the tooth forms part
wherein each of the first and second teeth being conformed so that the primitive backlash (J) of the gearing is less than 0.08 · m [backlash of zero imposed by elastic element of Daout, not claimed here that it must be greater than zero like claim 1].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-20, and 23-25, and 27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, prior art does not disclose or suggest, taken alone or in combination, a gearing for a horological mechanism including the limitation “each of the first and second teeth being conformed so that the primitive backlash of the gearing is more than 0 and less than 0.3 · m for the nominal axial center distance, where m is the modulus of the wheel of which the tooth forms part.” The closest related prior art is Feyer (EP 3208666 A1) which discloses a horological gearing such that the primitive backlash is advantageously between 0.05 to 0.07mm [0020]. For the conventional horological gearing sizes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious, this primitive backlash is greater than that claimed by the present invention and additional prior art does not provide an obvious combination with Feyer that meets the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-4, 4-15, 17-20, and 23-25 depend from claim 1 and are similarly allowable.
Regarding Claim 27, prior art does not disclose a horological gearing in which each of the first and second teeth being conformed so that the primitive backlash (J) of the gearing is either (i) 0 with no prestressing of the teeth or (ii) more than 0 and less than 0.3 · m for the nominal axial center distance (e) of the gearing, where m is the modulus of the wheel of which the tooth forms part; and wherein wherein:(i) the gearing ratio is equal to 1, and (ii) the respective circular arcs defining the shapes of the functional portions of the profiles of the first and second teeth have a same radius of curvature. Daout does not disclose that the gearing ratio is equal to 1 or that the respective circular arcs defining the shapes of the functional portions of the profiles of the first and second teeth have a same radius of curvature. Feyer (EP 3208666 A1) which discloses a similar horological gearing which has a gearing ratio equal to 1 and appears that the profiles of the first and second teeth have the same radius of curvature [figs. 5-6]. Feyer however provides that the primitive backlash is advantageously between 0.05 to 0.07mm [0020]. For the conventional horological gearing sizes a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious, this primitive backlash is greater than that claimed by the present invention and additional prior art does not provide an obvious combination with Feyer that meets the claimed limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571) 272-2009.
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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831