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 1-5, 9, 14, and 16-17 are acknowledged. These amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 16-17 and the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25, and these rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 14, and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites the limitations “in order to make the second deformable armature change from the extended configuration to the compact configuration and vice versa and from the compact configuration to the extended configuration” and it appears that the amendment “and from the compact configuration to the extended configuration” was intended to clarify the meaning of vice versa, however “vice versa” was not removed from the claim and is now unnecessary and confusing in combination with the amendment.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 with presence of “Means”
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Claim 14 recites the limitation “means for moving at least one rigid portion, in order to make the second deformable armature change from the extended configuration to the compact configuration and vice versa” (but does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, to which this limitation is being interpreted to require is a control rod. Support for this interpretation is found in paragraph [0063] of the specification.
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, 5, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruttli (EP 3671370 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kruttli discloses a diaphragm deployment device for horology, the device comprising
a first rigid armature (4); and
a second deformable armature (3),
wherein the first rigid armature and the second deformable armature are connected to one another, so that the second deformable armature changes from a first extended configuration [fig. 3] to a second compact configuration [0021-0023], and changes from the second compact configuration to the first extended configuration [0021-0023],
wherein the device defines a first geometry (larger diameter circular outline) [fig. 3] when the second deformable armature is in the first extended configuration, and defines a second geometry smaller than the first geometry, when the second deformable armature is in the second compact configuration (smaller diameter circular outline when rigid portions 12 are more compact) [0023],
wherein the device extends substantially in the same plane when the second armature is in the first or in the second configuration [fig. 3], and
wherein the second deformable armature comprises a plurality of first deformable portions (14) and a plurality of rigid portions (10, 12)
alternately arranged so that a first deformable portion of the plurality of first deformable portions connects a rigid portion (10) of the plurality of rigid portions to a following rigid portion (12) of the plurality of rigid portions [fig. 3] (each deformable portion 14 is between the rigid portion 10 and the rigid portions 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Kruttli discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each deformable portion comprises a flexible strip (14) [0025] connecting by its ends two rigid portions (10 and 12) of the plurality of rigid portions, or a rigid portion of the plurality of rigid portions and the first rigid armature.
Regarding Claim 14, Kruttli discloses the device according to claim 1, further comprising means (pivot pins 20, equivalent to pivoting support rod) for moving at least one rigid portion of the plurality of rigid portions, in order to make the second deformable armature change from the extended configuration to the compact configuration and vice versa and from the compact configuration to the extended configuration [0024].
Regarding Claim 25, Kruttli discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses a timepiece [abstract], comprising a diaphragm-type deployment device according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 16-17, 20-21, and 24 are 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.
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, 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
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
