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 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a finishing gear train, and, or else a stop mechanism" is idiomatically incorrect and should be changed to -a finishing gear train, and either a stop mechanism-.
Claim 28 recites “watch 200” in line 3. The typo “200” should be deleted.
Claim 46 recites “a final position with active,” “a position of return to the reference position with inactive,” and “a time-setting position with inactive.” These limitations are idiomatically incorrect and should be “a final position with an active,” “a position of return to the reference position with an inactive,” and “a time-setting position with an inactive.”
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 25-47 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.
The claims are replete with errors. A list of found issues appears below. Applicant is kindly requested to review all claims and correct the errors noted, and any others found, prior to resubmission.
Claim 25 recites “the operation” without antecedent basis in line 9. The limitation has been read as -an operation-.
Claim 25 recites “the display” without antecedent basis in line 10. The limitation has been read as -the display gear train-.
Claim 25 recites “said a coupling mechanism” in line 11. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation. It has been read as -said coupling mechanism-.
Claim 25 recites “at least one stop mechanism” in line 13. The limitation is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the previously recited stop mechanism or a new stop mechanism is unclear. The limitation has been read as -at least one said stop mechanism-.
Claim 25 recites “a watch” in the last line of page 1. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 25 already recites a watch. The limitation has been read as -the watch-.
Claim 25 recites “the resonator of the watch, or of a tourbillon or karussel” in the last line of page 1. If the resonator is part of the tourbillon or karussel, then “the resonator” lacks antecedent basis and whether it is the same resonator as the resonator of the watch recited previously is indefinite. The limitation “or of a tourbillon or karussel” is recommended to be deleted. Applicant may add a new claim reciting that “the watch includes a tourbillon,” as “tourbillon” appears to be the English translation and a synonym for “karussel”.
Claim 25 recites “an actuator of said clock” in line 2 of page 2. The limitation is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the actuator of the clock already recited in the antepenultimate line on page 1. The limitation has been read as -the actuator of said clock-.
Claim 25 recites “said display” in line 3 of page 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 25 recites “at least one hour display and one minute display” in line 12. It has been read as -at least one said hour or minute display-.
Claim 25 lacks antecedent basis for “the stop of the watch” in the third-to-last to second-to-last line. The limitation has been read as -the stop of the resonator-.
Claim 25 lacks antecedent basis for “the resetting of its display” in the penultimate line. The limitation has been read as -a resetting of a display of the watch-.
Claim 25 lacks antecedent basis for “said display” in the last line. Whether it refers to the minute display, hour display, or watch display is indefinite. It has been read as - said minute and hour display-.
All recitations of “said display,” “said displays,” and “the displays” in the dependent claims are ambiguous as to whether which of the recited displays (the minute display, hour display, or the display of the watch) are being referred to.
Claim 26 lacks antecedent basis for “the spring” in the third-to-last line. The limitation has been read as -a spring-.
Claim 27 lacks antecedent basis for “the movement in line 3. The limitation has been read as -a movement-.
Claim 27 lacks antecedent basis for “the positioning” in line 4. The limitation has been read as -the resetting-.
Claim 27 lacks antecedent basis for “for each adjusted horological variable” in line 5. The limitation has been read as -for each of a plurality of horological variables to be adjusted-.
Claim 28 recites that “said hammer is unique and common.” To be unique is to be one-of-a-kind. The limitation contradicts itself and the claim is unclear in meaning.
Claim 28 lacks antecedent basis for “all said heart-pieces included in said watch for the different watch variables to be adjusted.” The limitation has been read as -all heart-pieces included in said watch for each of the horological variables to be adjusted-.
Claim 31 recites “an actuator of one said clock” in line 3. Whether this limitation means to refer the previous recitation is unclear. It has been read as -the actuator of one said clock-.
Claim 32 lacks antecedent basis for “the execution” in line 3.
Claim 33 recites “a minute display” in line 3. Whether this limitation means to refer the previous recitation is unclear.
Claim 34 lacks antecedent basis for “the movement” in lines 3-4.
Claim 34 lacks antecedent basis for “the running” in the last line.
Claim 37 recites “a coupling mechanism” in line 2. Whether this limitation means to refer the previous recitation is unclear.
Claim 38 recites “a hammer” in line 2. Whether this limitation means to refer the previous recitation is unclear. All subsequent recitations of the hammer in claim 38 are also indefinite.
Claim 38 lacks antecedent basis for “its smallest” in line 5.
Claim 39 recites “a minute display” in line 3. Whether this limitation means to refer the previous recitation is unclear.
Claim 39 lacks antecedent basis for “the exact minute” in line 3.
Claim 42 lacks antecedent basis for “the start” in line 3.
Claim 42 lacks antecedent basis for “the function” in line 3.
Claim 42 lacks antecedent basis for “the uncoupling” in line 4.
Claim 42 lacks antecedent basis for “the end” in line 5.
Claim 42 lacks antecedent basis for “the coupling-clutch” in the last line.
Claim 42 lacks antecedent basis for “the balance” in the last line.
Claim 43 recites “the thrust of the spring” in line 6. The limitations have been read as.
Claim 43 lacks antecedent basis for “the coiling” in the last line.
Claims 44 and 46 recite “of column wheel type” and “of the shuttle type” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claims 44 and 46 recites “type” in lines 3-4. What is meant by “type” is unclear.
Claim 45 recites “said watch only includes a reciprocal cam” in line 3. A watch having only a cam is not a watch. The limitation has been read as -said watch includes only a reciprocal cam for the function controller-.
Claim 46 lacks antecedent basis for “the three-position column wheel type” in lines 5-6. What is meant by “type” is also unclear.
Claim 46 recites “the columns of the column wheel.” Both recitations lack antecedent basis.
Claim 47 lacks antecedent basis for “the hammer or hammers.”
Conclusion
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
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights