Detailed Action begins on Page 3
Table of Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
Response to Amendment 3
Response to Arguments 3
Claim Interpretation 4
112(f) invoked despite absence of “Means” 5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7
Claims 24-27 and 29 7
Allowable Subject Matter 13
Conclusion 14
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 claim 24 is acknowledged. These amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 24 and this rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitations “the external correction signal comprising information relative to a correction of said actual time displayed” and “to determine a correction required for the actual time displayed” are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply to the limitations. Where the mechanical resonator is braked/corrected by the device for correcting the actual time indicated by the display as provided by Tombez and Meijer this meets the limitations pertaining to “actual time displayed” because the mechanical resonator performs part of the process of the mechanical movement for producing, maintaining, and processing the counting and displaying of time for the timepiece. There is no significant difference presented between a correction required for the actual time displayed and a correction required for the time displayed. And external information used to correct the time displayed is inherently related to the actual time displayed where the timepiece is consistently correcting the time displayed based on the external signal.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
112(f) invoked despite absence of “Means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a braking device for braking the mechanical resonator” in claim 24.
“a device for determining a passage of the oscillating mechanical resonator through at least one specific position” in claim 25.
“a detector for detecting a position and direction of motion of the mechanical resonator” in claim 27.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “a braking device for braking the mechanical resonator” in claim 24 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structural embodiments provided in the specification for this limitation found in page 10, lines 9-30 (electromechanical actuator), page 11 lines 5-11, page 34 lines 18-20, page 41 lines 5-20, and page 58 lines 11-17.
The limitation “a device for determining a passage of the oscillating mechanical resonator through at least one specific position” in claim 25 is interpreted to cover the structure of an optical sensor defined in the specification, see page 59 line 22 – page 60 line 8.
The limitation “a detector for detecting a position and direction of motion of the mechanical resonator” in claim 27 has corresponding structure disclosed in page 59 line 22 – page 60 line 8 of the specification and is accordingly interpreted to cover an optical sensor.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other limitations considered for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but that are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
“a drive mechanism for driving the display” in claim 24, however the “drive mechanism of a mechanical timepiece movement” is a term of the art that provides sufficient structure on its own such that “drive mechanism” does not meet the generic placeholder for means required for 112(f) interpretation.
“a device for correcting the actual time indicated by the display” in claim 24, however claim 24 proceeds to supply sufficient structure to define what is required by the device.
“a stop member for stopping the oscillating mechanical resonator” in claim 26, however claim 26 proceeds to supply sufficient structure to define what is required by the stop member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 24-27 and 29
Claims 24-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombez et al. (CH 713332 A2, hereinafter “Tombez”) in view of Meijer et al. (US 20100128573 A1, hereinafter “Meijer”).
Regarding Claim 24, Tombez discloses a timepiece (2) [fig. 1], comprising:
a display displaying an actual time [0001] (mechanical oscillator used regulate a display of actual time) [0026] (a reference of useful and stable time within the oscillations) (any person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that where a timepiece with a mechanical oscillator is disclosed, there is obviously provided a display of the time which is regulated by the mechanical oscillator);
a mechanical movement (4) comprising a drive mechanism (10) [fig. 1] for driving the display and a mechanical resonator (14) which is coupled to the drive mechanism such that an oscillation thereof times a running of the drive mechanism [0023]; and
a device for correcting (6) the actual time indicated by the display, wherein
the device for correcting the actual time displayed comprises:
a correction signal (control signal) [0029] for correcting the actual time displayed;
an electronic controller (22) [fig. 2] configured to process said information contained in the external correction signal to determine a correction required for the actual time displayed [0025] (“electronic control circuit arranged to generate a control signal, which is supplied to the regulation pulse application device which is arranged in such a way as to in response to this control signal, it is possible to generate successive control pulses each exerting a certain force torque on the mechanical resonator”); and
a braking device (36, 38) for braking the mechanical resonator;
the electronic controller is configured to control the braking device as a function of the correction required [0025, 0027-0029], and
the device for correcting the actual time is arranged such that, when the correction signal received by the timepiece requires the actual time displayed to be corrected, the braking device is configured to act on the mechanical resonator during a correction period [0031], to vary the running of the drive mechanism to carry out the required correction [0031] .
Tombez does not explicitly disclose that the device for correcting the actual time displayed comprises a receiver for receiving an external correction signal for correcting the actual time displayed, the external correction signal comprising information relative to a correction of said actual time displayed, instead disclosing that a correction signal is generated from a quartz oscillator 42 and clock circuit 50 [figs. 2 and 3].
Meijer discloses that instead of a quartz oscillator for providing the reference signal to the electronic controller the timing of the mechanical oscillator can be controlled and/or regularly calibrated to a time signal, for instance from an atomic clock, that is transmitted via a radio transmitter and a receiver to receive the time signal [0012, 0049], the external correction signal comprising information relative to a correction of said actual time displayed [0051] (reference signal used to control the timing of the mechanical oscillator which therefore acts in correcting the actual time displayed by the timepiece). Relatedly, Meijer further provides an electronic controller (10) configured to process said information contained in the external correction signal to determine a correction required for the actual time displayed [0051].
The prior art of Tombez contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of the source of the reference/correction signal of the correction device with another. Specifically, Tombez provided for a correction signal generated from a quartz oscillator instead of a correction signal which is received by a receiver for receiving an external correction signal. Meijer disclosed that both a quartz oscillator for generating a time signal and a receiver for receiving an externally created time signal are known in the art and interchangeable for supplying the correction signal of a mechanical oscillator correction device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been wholly predictable because both are known by those skilled in the art to provide the same functionality to a correction device just from different sources.
Regarding Claim 25, Tombez and Meijer disclose the timepiece according to claim 24, and Tombez discloses the timepiece further comprising a device for determining a passage of the oscillating mechanical resonator through at least one specific position (neutral position) [0025] comprising an optical sensor (34) [0035] (required following claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see above), the device for determining allowing said electronic controller to determine a specific moment at which the oscillating mechanical resonator is located in said specific position [0049] (“applied in an alternation relative to the moment when this mechanical resonator passes through its neutral position”), wherein the electronic controller is arranged such that a first activation of the braking device [0051], occurring at a start of the correction period to produce a first interaction between the braking device and the mechanical resonator [0051], is initiated as a function of said specific moment [0049, 0051] (whether a braking pulses for delays or advances, which is a comparison of the specific moment and the auxiliary oscillator, is needed determines moment to apply braking pulse).
Regarding Claim 26, Tombez and Meijer disclose the timepiece according to claim 25, and Tombez further discloses wherein the mechanical movement comprises an escapement (12) associated with the mechanical resonator [fig. 1], the braking device comprises an actuator (36) provided with a stop member (38) for stopping the oscillating mechanical resonator [0029] [fig. 2], the stop member is configured to be actuated between a position of non-interaction with the mechanical resonator and a position of interaction [0029] (when energized comes into contact) wherein the stop member forms an abutment for a projecting part of the oscillating mechanical resonator (40) [0029], the projecting part is arranged to abut against the stop member when the stop member is in the position of interaction thereof [0029] (when energized comes into contact), the stop member in the position of interaction thereof and the projecting part defining a stop position for the oscillating mechanical resonator which is different from a neutral position thereof [0014] (“given instant being selected so that the passage through the neutral position of the mechanical resonator does not occur during the mechanical braking pulse”), corresponding to a minimum potential energy state of the mechanical resonator [0001], and less than a minimum amplitude of the oscillating mechanical resonator in a usable operating range thereof, said stop position is further provided such that the oscillating mechanical resonator is brought to a halt by the stop member outside a coupling zone of the escapement with the oscillating mechanical resonator [figs. 1 and 2] (show where escapement coupling zone is in relation to balance and where the stop member comes in contact with the balance, respectively, which are different zones), and a circuit (control circuit 22) [0024] for determining said specific position of the oscillating mechanical resonator (neutral position) [0025, 0039] and the electronic controller is arranged to activate the actuator, when correction signal corresponds to a loss in a time displayed that is to be corrected [0049] (braking pulses for delays or advances), such that the actuator actuates the stop member thereof so that the projecting part of the oscillating mechanical resonator comes to abut against the stop member [0029] (actuates in response to braking pulses) in a plurality of half-alternations of the oscillating mechanical resonator each of which follows the passage thereof through said neutral position [0026, 0041] so as to prematurely end each of the half-alternations without blocking the mechanical resonator [0051], a number of half-alternations of said plurality of half-alternations or a duration of the correction period during which the stop member is held in the position of interaction thereof being determined by said loss to be corrected [0044, 0051].
While Tombez does not explicitly further disclose that the electronic controller is arranged to activate the actuator, when the external correction signal received by the receiver corresponds to a loss in a time displayed that is to be corrected, this limitation is met through the combination of Tombez with Meijer for the same reasons applied in claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 27, Tombez and Meijer disclose the timepiece according to claim 26, and Tombez further discloses wherein the device for determining said specific position of the oscillating mechanical resonator comprises a detector for detecting a position and direction of motion of the mechanical resonator, comprising an optical sensor (34) [0035] (required following claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see above), the detector and the mechanical resonator are arranged to allow the passage of the oscillating mechanical resonator through said specific position in each period of the oscillation thereof to be detected (neutral position, meets limitation) [0026] and to allow the electronic controller to determine the direction of motion of the oscillating mechanical resonator in the alternation during which the passage of the oscillating mechanical resonator through said specific position is detected [0035], and the electronic controller is configured to at least partially correct said loss, such that the electronic controller is configured to control the actuator so that the actuator actuates the stop member thereof from the position of non-interaction thereof into the position of interaction thereof when the oscillating mechanical resonator is situated on the neutral position side relative to said stop position [0040, 0042], and so that the actuator subsequently holds the stop member in the position of interaction for a determined duration [0040] that is sufficient for the projecting part of the oscillating mechanical resonator to abut at least once against the stop member [0042].
Regarding Claim 29, Tombez and Meijer disclose the timepiece according to claim 27, and Tombez further discloses wherein the electronic controller comprises a measuring circuit (52) which is associated with said detector, the measuring circuit comprises a clock circuit (56), providing a clock signal at a determined frequency [Shor], and a comparator circuit (58) allowing a time drift of the oscillating mechanical resonator relative to a setpoint frequency (Shor) thereof to be measured [0054], the measuring circuit is arranged to measure a time interval corresponding to a time drift (state of C2) of the mechanical resonator from the start of the correction period [0054], and the electronic controller is arranged to end the correction period as soon as said time interval is greater than or equal to a time error that is supplied by the external correction signal [0056].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 28, prior art does not disclose a timepiece which meets all of the limitations of claim 27 and also the limitation that “said actuator is of a bistable type and is arranged such that the actuator is configured to remain in the position of non-interaction and in the position of interaction without maintaining a power supply to the actuator”. Tombez for instance discloses a piezoelectric element actuator which only maintains its position of interaction when powered. Additional prior art does disclose an obvious motivation to modify the actuator or Tombez to make it bistable without a power supply while maintaining the other functions of the timepiece and the device for correcting the actual time indicated by the display provided therein.
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 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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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 2844
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2844