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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Azan Index” should be changed to “Azan index” to be consistent with all other recitations of “Azan index” in the claims, as the recitation appears to refer to the same index.
Claim 12 is objected to because “at least variable chosen from location, date, or time” is idiomatically incorrect and should be -at least one variable chosen from location, date, or time-.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-2 and 6-20 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 1 lacks antecedent basis “Azan time” in line 5. The limitation has been read as -an Azan time of the five Azan times that is -.
Claim 1 recites “current time” in line 5. This limitation has ambiguous antecedent basis because line 1 already recites “a current time.” The limitation in line 5 has been read as -the current time-.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the Azan index hand” in line 9. The limitation has been read as -an Azan index hand-.
Claim 1 recites “the Azan index hand functions as the Azan index” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the Azan index.” Lines 11-13 are suggested to be changed to -the Azan analog counter functions as the Azan index hand when the current time is within a predetermined time of the current Azan and the Azan analog counter functions as a second hand when the current time is not within the predetermined time of the current Azan.” This change would also correct a lack of antecedent basis issue for “predetermined time” in line 12.
Claim 6 lacks antecedent basis for “the Azan index predetermined time interval” in lines 1-2. The limitation is suggested to be -the predetermined time-. Claims 7-8 are similarly rejected.
Claim 11 is rejected because “one hand shows Azan Index movement” is unclear in meaning because a hand is only a pointer and cannot display or show a movement, which is an assembly of gears and other components powered to collectively track a passage of time. The limitation is suggested to be -one hand is connected to an Azan index movement-.
Claim 13 recites “a time movement and an Azan index movement, which are driven by a pulse” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for “an Azan index movement” because claim 11 already recites an Azan index movement. The limitation has been read as -a time movement, and wherein the time movement and the Azan index movement are driven by a pulse-.
Claim 15 recites “moving the Azan index using a crown or digitally moving the Azan index” in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis “the Azan index.” Both recitations have been read as -the Azan index hand-.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the microcontroller unit and the structure responsible for “digitally moving.” Digital motion appears to refer to electronics and circuitry. How exactly electrical signals are created to direct the microcontroller to move the Azan index hand, and how a user would know how to manipulate the electrical signals, is omitted from the claims. The limitation “digitally moving the Azan index hand using the microcontroller unit” is suggested to be changed to -digitally moving the Azan index hand using a pusher connected to the microcontroller unit- based on [0041] of the specification.
Claim 16 lacks antecedent basis for “the correct time and date” in line 2. The limitation has been read as -a correct time-of-day and date-.
Claim 17 lacks antecedent bases for “the analog time movement” and “current digital time.” The limitations have been read as -an analog time movement- and -a current digital time-.
Claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for “the Azan index movement hand position.” The limitation has been read as -the Azan index hand position-.
Claim 17 has ambiguous antecedent basis for “current time” in line 3 because claim 1 already recites “a current time.” The former has been read as -the current time-.
Claim 17 lacks antecedent basis for “current Azan time” in the last line. The limitation has been read as -the current Azan-.
Claim 18 lacks antecedent basis for “Azan Taqweem system” in line 4. The limitation has been read as -an Azan Taqweem system-.
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 from 9:30-5:30 PT.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831