Detailed Action begins on Page 3
Table of Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
Election/Restrictions 3
Claim Interpretation 3
112(f) invoked with presence of “Means” 5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 5
Claims 16-17 6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 6
Claims 1-10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25 7
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 9
Claims 1-7, 20-21, and 24-25 9
Claims 1 and 6-10 12
Citation of Relevant Art 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Figs. 1-5, and lists Claims 1-10, 14, 16-17, 20-21 and 24-25 as readable thereon in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged. Claims 11-13, 15, 18-19, and 22-23 are accordingly withdrawn from consideration.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites the limitation “wherein the rigid portion(s) moved by the movement means are rigid portions that are not connected to the first rigid armature” and the specification does not provide support for this limitation. While the specification and drawings describe provide written description for a rigid portion meeting this limitation which is not in direct contact with the first rigid armature, all of the drawings and the specification, see [0055], only support that all of the rigid portions as part of the second deformable armature are connected with the first rigid armature as part of the same device. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “connected” there is not support for any rigid portion of the invention as described in the specification or shown in the drawings to not be somehow connected to the first rigid armature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25
Claim 1-10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “and vice versa” and [line 8] and while it can be presumed that this refers to the limitation “changes from a first extended configuration to a second compact configuration” and means changes from a second compact configuration to a first extended configuration, it could also be referring to “the first rigid armature and the second deformable armature being connected to one another so that the second deformable armature changes . . . and vice versa” and thus the precise meaning of the limitation “and vice versa” is not particularly defined. For purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted with the former interpretation above.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “a rigid portion to a following rigid portion” and [lines 17-18] and it not clearly defined if these elements are part of the previously introduced rigid portions or if they are separate elements. Proper antecedent basis or clear distinction from the previous limitation is required. For purposes of examination claim 1 will be interpreted so that these elements are part of the previously introduced rigid portions.
Regarding Claims 2-10, 14, 16-17, 20-21, and 24-25, they depend from claim 1 and are rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 2, it recites the limitation “connecting one or more rigid portions to the first rigid armature.” and it is not clearly defined if “one or more rigid portions” is a new element or refers to the previously introduced rigid portions. Proper antecedent basis or clear distinction from the previous limitation is required.
Regarding Claim 3, it recites the limitation “connect one rigid portion out of two” and it is not clearly defined if the “one rigid portion” is a new element or refers to the previously introduced rigid portions. Proper antecedent basis or clear distinction from the previous limitation is required.
Regarding Claim 4, it recites the limitation “the other rigid portions” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites the limitation “two rigid portions, or a rigid portion” and it is not clearly defined if the “two rigid portions” and the “a rigid portion” are new elements or refer to the previously introduced rigid portions. Proper antecedent basis or clear distinction from the previous limitation is required.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites the limitation “a rigid portion” and it is not clearly defined if this is a new element or refers to the previously introduced rigid portions. Proper antecedent basis or clear distinction from the previous limitation is required.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites the limitation “at least one rigid portion” and it is not clearly defined if this is a new element or refers to the previously introduced rigid portions. Proper antecedent basis or clear distinction from the previous limitation is required.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites the limitation “substantially straight” and the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation “substantially straight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-7, 20-21, and 24-25
Claims 1-7, 14, 20-21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardot (US 10444708 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Cardo discloses a diaphragm deployment device for horology, the device comprising a first rigid armature (2) and a second deformable armature (4, 5, 32, 33), the first rigid armature and the second deformable armature being connected to one another, so that the second deformable armature changes from a first extended configuration to a second compact configuration [figs. 1A and 1B], and vice versa, the device defining a first geometry when the second deformable armature is in the first extended configuration [fig. 1A], and defining a second geometry smaller than the first geometry, when the second deformable armature is in the second compact configuration [fig. 1B], the device extending substantially in the same plane when the second armature is in the first or in the second configuration [figs. 1A and 1B], wherein the second deformable armature comprises first deformable portions (4, 32b, and 32c forming one, and 4, 33b, and 33c forming another) and rigid portions (5, 32a, 33a) assembled alternately [figs. 1A and 1B], a first deformable portion connecting a rigid portion to a following rigid portion [figs. 1A and 1B].
Regarding Claim 2, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second deformable armature comprises at least one second deformable portion (8), connecting one or more rigid portions (5) to the first rigid armature (2) [fig. 1B].
Regarding Claim 3, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the second deformable portions connect one rigid portion out of two to the first rigid armature [fig. 1B] (two rigid portions between 5 and the combined rigid portion of 31a, 32a, and 33b in this position).
Regarding Claim 4, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the rigid portions connected to the first rigid armature (5) have shapes different from the other rigid portions (32a, 32b) [figs. 1A and 1B].
Regarding Claim 5, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each deformable portion comprises a flexible strip (4) connecting by its ends two rigid portions, or a rigid portion (32b, 32c) and the first rigid armature (2) [fig. 1A].
Regarding Claim 6, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first rigid armature delimits the outer perimeter of the diaphragm, the second deformable armature being arranged inside said perimeter [figs. 1A and 1B].
Regarding Claim 7, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein the first geometry defines a first opening (space between 32c and 33c) when the second deformable armature is in the first extended configuration [fig. 1A], and the second geometry defines a second opening (space between 32c and 33c) when the second deformable armature is in the second compact configuration [fig. 1B], the first opening being narrower than the second opening [figs. 1A and 1B] (extended configuration in 1A has narrower gap between 32c and 33c than the compact configuration).
Regarding Claim 14, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein it comprises means for moving (6 in combination with 5 acting as a control rod) 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 [figs. 1A and 1B].
Regarding Claim 17, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the movement means are configured to produce a substantially straight movement of the rigid portion(s) [figs. 1A to 1B].
Regarding Claim 20, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one first portion of the first rigid armature and at least one first portion of the second deformable armature form a first one-piece assembly [figs. 1A and 1B] (connected together in one-piece).
Regarding Claim 21, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 20, and further discloses wherein the whole of the first rigid armature and the whole of the second deformable armature form the first one-piece assembly [figs. 1A and 1B] (all connected together in one-piece).
Regarding Claim 24, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 20, and further discloses the material of the device is to be selected from silicon [col. 2 lines 57-61], an Ni/P-type nickel-phosphorus alloy or an Fe/Ni/Co/Mo-type steel alloy.
Regarding Claim 25, Cardo discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses a timepiece [col. 1, lines 18-21], comprising a diaphragm-type deployment device according to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 6-10
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Claret et al. (US 20080130423 A1, hereinafter “Claret”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claret discloses a diaphragm deployment device for horology, the device comprising a first rigid armature (16) [0025, 0032] and a second deformable armature (10), the first rigid armature and the second deformable armature being connected to one another, so that the second deformable armature changes from a first extended configuration [fig. 3] to a second compact configuration [fig. 5], and vice versa, the device defining a first geometry when the second deformable armature is in the first extended configuration [fig. 3, fig. 1], and defining a second geometry smaller than the first geometry, when the second deformable armature is in the second compact configuration [fig. 5] (compact configuration where the deformable armature including shutters take up less space), the device extending substantially in the same plane when the second armature is in the first or in the second configuration [figs. 3-5], wherein the second deformable armature comprises first deformable portions (66, 74) and rigid portions (64, 38) assembled alternately, a first deformable portion connecting a rigid portion to a following rigid portion (66, 64).
Regarding Claim 6, Claret discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first rigid armature delimits the outer perimeter of the diaphragm, the second deformable armature being arranged inside said perimeter [0025, 0032].
Regarding Claim 7, Claret discloses the device according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein the first geometry defines a first opening when the second deformable armature is in the first extended configuration [fig. 1, fig. 3], and the second geometry defines a second opening, when the second deformable armature is in the second compact configuration [fig. 5] [0021], the first opening being narrower than the second opening.
Regarding Claim 8, Claret discloses the device according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein the second deformable armature comprises at least two movable shutters (28), the shutters being distributed by angular symmetry [fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 9, Claret discloses the device according to claim 8, and further discloses each shutter being arranged on a rigid portion (22, 24) different from the second deformable armature.
Regarding Claim 10, Claret discloses the device according to claim 8, and further discloses wherein the shutters delimit the first opening of the first configuration and the second opening of the second configuration [0021] [fig. 1, figs. 3-5].
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kruttli (EP 3671370 A1) discloses a friction clutch device comprising a clutch control member and a clutch spring capable of frictionally coupling a first wheel to a second wheel so that they can pivot together along an axis A, one of the first and second wheels being a driving wheel and the other being a driven wheel intended for a timepiece.
Pierre-Yves (CH 711228 A1) discloses a display device for a timepiece, said display device comprising: at least one display element arranged to indicate at least one first piece of information; a cover comprising a plurality of segments arranged to move between a first state in which the cover defines a first inner diameter and a first outer diameter, and a second state in which the cover defines a second inner diameter and a second outer diameter.
Capt (EP 2085832 A1) discloses a chronograph control device, comprising: a column wheel associated with manual control means; a chronograph shaft, rotatable about its axis and coupled to chronograph display means; a drive plate, rotatable on the chronograph shaft and provided with a toothed element to be rotated continuously by a clockwork movement; a clutch capable of selectively frictionally coupling the chronograph shaft to the drive plate by at least one clutch spring; and control and stop members actuated by the column wheel to operate the clutch and stop or release the chronograph shaft.
Conclusion
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