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 .
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 2-9 and 12 are 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.
Claim 2 recites “the date indicator includes, and a bridge.” The claim is missing a structure after “includes.” For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been read as -the date indicator includes a bridge-.
Claim 8 recites “the frame includes a first frame part and a second frame part, the second frame part being disposed inside the first frame part.” These limitations are redundant as claim 1 already recites these structures. For the purpose of examination, lines 2-3 are not being considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito (US20120252373).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Saito teaches (Figs. 12 and 14-15) an electronic device ([0015]) and timepiece ([0024]) comprising: a date indicator (41, 50) that includes a character part (numbers in Fig. 12) and a non-character part (42) different from the character part, the non-character part being a through hole; and a solar battery (14) disposed below a date indicator ([0196] discloses that Fig. 13 shows the date indicator being level with the dial, and [0109] discloses that the dial is above the solar panel, so the battery is therefore below the indicator), wherein the date indicator includes a frame comprising a first frame part (outer circumference of 41) and a second frame part disposed inside the first frame part (inner circumference of 41), the solar battery has a shape along the frame (the solar battery is below the date indicator and therefore has a shape overlapping and along the indicator’s frame), an outer part of the solar battery along the first frame part and an inner part of the solar battery along the second frame part are non-light-receiving portions (the date indicator blocks light everywhere except the through-hole 42), the first frame part overlaps the outer part of the solar battery, and the second frame part overlaps the inner part of the solar battery (the solar battery is below the frame, so the frame overlaps the battery everywhere except for the non-character part).
Regarding claim 18, Saito teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the solar battery is to be at least partially exposed to light through the through hole (42 in Fig. 12). The through hole 42 is to allow light to penetrate through the date indicator, as the rest of the indicator shields light ([0199]). As the solar battery is below the date indicator, the through hole allows the battery to be exposed to light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2012/0252373) in view of Donze (WO 2019175687).
Regarding claim 2, Saito discloses the electronic device according to claim 1.
Saito does not show the date indicator including a bridge, wherein the frame supports the character part via the bridge.
Donze teaches a date indicator including a bridge, wherein a frame supports a character part via the bridge. See image below.
PNG
media_image1.png
237
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Saito’s date indicator for Donze’s date indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to allow for more light and radio waves to strike the solar battery and antenna, which would improve reception and battery life, and to reveal the watch’s inner components as a known and desirable aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 3, Saito in view of Donze discloses the electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the frame is ring-shaped (Fig. 3 of Donze).
Regarding claim 4, Saito in view of Donze discloses (Figs. 3-4 of Donze) the electronic device according to claim 2, further comprising: a gear wheel (30) configured to be driven to rotate (by 1), wherein: the frame (2) includes a gear (2) that engages with the gear wheel (by 210); and the frame is configured to be rotated by the gear wheel through the gear (2).
Regarding claim 5, discloses the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the gear wheel (30 in Fig. 3 of Donze) constitutes a wheel mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, Saito in view of Donze discloses the electronic device according to claim 2, the character part is supported between the first frame part and the second frame part via the bridge (see image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
237
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Saito in view of Donze discloses the electronic device according to claim 2, wherein a part of the date indicator except the frame, the bridge, and the character part is the through hole. Fig. 4 of Donze shows a part of numbered character part “31” being a through-hole.
Regarding claim 10, Saito discloses (Fig. 10, 15) the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the solar battery (14) includes a ring-shaped main body (the battery 14 has a center hole for the shaft 32, thereby making the battery ring-shaped) and a contact part provided inside or outside the ring-shaped main body, the contact part being electrically connected to a board. Fig. 7 shows the solar battery being electrically connected to circuits, and such a connection requires at least a contact part. See also [0108].
Regarding claim 16, Saito discloses (Fig. 12) the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the date indicator (41) comprises: the character part (day counters on 41); the non-character part (42); and a circular frame (Fig. 12).
Saito does not show a bridge part connected to the circular frame, wherein the character part is connected to the circular frame by only the bridge part, wherein the circular frame, bridge part, and the character part form a single layer, and wherein the single layer defines the through hole and the through hole borders the circular frame, the bridge part, and at least a portion of the character part.
Donze teaches (Figs. 3-4 of Donze) the date indicator (2) comprising: a character part (number structures in Fig. 4); a non-character part (through-holes defining the character part); a circular frame (2 in Fig. 3); a bridge part (see annotated image in claim 2’s rejection) connected to the circular frame, wherein the character part is connected to the circular frame by only the bridge part (Fig. 4), wherein the circular frame, the bridge part, and the character part from a single layer (Fig. 4), and wherein the single layer defines the through hole and the through hole borders the circular frame (inner ring of the frame 2), the bridge part, and at least a portion of the character part (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Saito’s date indicator for Donze’s date indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to allow for more light and radio waves to strike the solar battery and antenna, which would improve reception and battery life, and to reveal the watch’s inner components as a known and desirable aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 17, Saito discloses the electronic device according to claim 1.
Saito does not show the through hole being made to cause the character part to visually express a day in a month, wherein a shape of the through-hole is defined by a shape of the character part.
Donze discloses (Figs. 3-4) a date indicator (2) that includes a character part (numbers in Figs. 3-4) and a non-character part different from the character part, the non-character part being a through hole that is made to cause the character part to visually express a day in a month, wherein a shape of the through-hole is defined by a shape of the character part. Figs. 3-4 show the numbers of the date indicator 2 being shaped against a background that is a through hole. The figures show that the non-character part through holes reveal the underlying gears of the timepiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Saito’s date indicator for Donze’s date indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of indicating the date and achieving a desired visual appearance.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Nakajima (US 2019/0294120).
Regarding claim 11, Saito discloses the electronic device according to claim 10.
Saito does not show the contact part preventing the solar battery from rotating in a circumferential direction.
Nakajima teaches ([0085]-[0086]) a contact part (“29”) of a solar battery (“25”) preventing the sola battery from rotating in a circumferential direction, wherein the contact part is connected to a board (“21”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the contact part of Saito for the contact part of Nakajima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of securely holding the solar battery in place and preventing the battery from being deformed.
Regarding claim 15, Saito in view of Donze discloses the timepiece according to claim 14.
The combination of Saito and Donze does not show the solar battery being divided into multiple cells, the solar battery including a cell connector that connects the cells, and the cell connector overlapping with an hour sign of the time indicator when the date indicator is stationary.
Nakajima teaches (Fig. 6) a solar battery (25) divided into multiple cells (261-268) and including a cell connector (275) that connects the cells ([0079), wherein the cell connector overlaps with an hour sign of a time indicator when a date indicator is stationary. Fig. 6 shows that the cell connector overlaps with a 2 o’clock position of the battery, and paragraph [0093] further teaches that the cell connector overlaps with a dial ring of the time indicator.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Saito’s solar battery for Nakajima’s solar battery, so that the cell connector overlaps with an hour sign of the time indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution so that the battery and cell connector would be charged by the sun through the through-hole.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Donze and Miyazawa (US 6,229,767).
Regarding claim 13, Saito discloses the electronic device according to claim 1.
Saito does not explicitly show the solar battery including a date background region at a part corresponding to a date indication position where the date indicator indicates a date. Saito also does not teach the date background region being colored to be distinguishable from the date indicator.
Donze teaches (Figs. 3-4) a date indicator comprised of character parts and non-character parts that are through holes.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Saito’s date indicator for Donze’s date indicator so that Saito’s solar battery, disposed below the date indicator, would include at least one date background region at a part corresponding to a date indication position where the date indicator indicates a date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution so that the solar battery receives more light and therefore has a longer battery life, and to reveal the watch’s inner components to achieve a known and desirable visual appearance.
The combination of Saito and Donze does not show the date background region being colored to be distinguishable from the date indicator.
Miyazawa teaches a film placed above a solar battery to distinguish the color of the battery from the color of information such as numbers on a watch (abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the film of Miyazawa with the device of Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that the solar battery of Saito serving as a background would be clearly distinguishable from Saito’s date indicator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-01-08 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Saito does not place a solar panel under the date wheel” and that “Saito does not intend to place a solar panel under the date wheel 41 because Saito’s date wheel 41 does not appear to have through holes.” Saito’s disclosure does not state that the solar panel is not under the date wheel. Furthermore, Saito’s date wheel does have a through hole (42 in Fig. 12). This through hole allows for light to penetrate the date wheel. Finally, Saito discloses that the positional relationship of the dial, date indicator, and antenna is shown by Figs. 12-13, which show that the dial and date indicator are level, while the antenna is below the dial. Figs. 15-16 show that the solar battery is below the dial. The prima facie conclusion to one of ordinary skill in the art is that the solar battery must be below the date indicator as the date indicator is level with the dial that the battery is disposed below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 6, Nakajima teaches (Fig. 6) a solar battery (25) divided into multiple cells by a division line (lines in Fig. 6 creating circular sectors of the battery). The prior art does not show or suggest the division line overlapping with a bridge of the date indicator when the date indicator is stationary, in combination with the other limitations.
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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Renee Luebke can be reached on 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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833