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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2026-01-08 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘363 (JP S5028363) in view of Yatsugi (JP H1048351).
Regarding claim 1, ‘363 discloses (Fig. 2) a watch comprising: a first pointer (17); a first magnetic body (16 and [0002] in the translation: “drive magnet 16”) fixed to the first pointer; a second magnetic body (13) arranged facing the first magnetic body; a first shaft body (12) configured to be rotated by a drive source (1 in Fig. 2 and [0002] of the translation: “motor 1” causes “second hand shaft 12” to rotate intermittently); and a support member (see image below) fixed to and extending from the first shaft body; wherein the first and second magnetic bodies are each polarized by being magnetized into two different poles (Fig. 2), wherein one pole of the first magnetic body and the other pole of the second magnetic body are arranged facing each other. Fig. 2 of ‘363 shows that the two magnets 13 and 16 have North poles “N” and South poles “S” which face one another—thus, when the arbor 12 rotates, these two magnets will also rotate with their poles facing each other due to magnetic attraction. ‘363 also discloses the support member extending through a shaft hole of the first magnetic body (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘363 does not show the support member extending through a shaft hole of the second magnetic body, wherein the support member fixes the second magnetic body to the first shaft body, and wherein the support member is configured to support the first magnetic body in a rotatable manner.
Yatsugi teaches (Fig. 9) a support member (see image below) extending through a shaft hole of a first body (12) and a shaft hole of a second body (11), wherein the support member fixes the second body to a first shaft body (see image below), and wherein the support member is configured to support the first body in a rotatable manner (rotation of the support member causes 11-12 to rotate).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
641
media_image2.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 ‘363’s support member for Yatsugi’s support member so that the support member extends through the shaft holes of both the first and second magnetic bodies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of reducing the number of timepiece components, which decrease the chance of breakage and simplifies manufacture and assembly.
Regarding claim 2, ‘363 discloses the watch according to claim 1, wherein the second magnetic body holds the first magnetic body by magnetism of the second magnetic body. Paragraph [0002]: “an attractive relationship occurs between the permanent magnet…and the driven magnet”).
Regarding claim 4, ‘363 discloses (Fig. 2) the watch according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic body (16) and the second magnetic body (13) are arranged facing each other in an axial direction (the longitudinal axis of the first shaft body 12).
Regarding claim 7, ‘363 discloses (Fig. 2) the watch according to claim 1, comprising a second pointer (25), wherein the wheel train mechanism includes a second rotary wheel ([0002]: a “gear train” drives the pointers, implying a wheel) having a second shaft body (24) to which the second pointer is fixed, and wherein the first shaft body and the second shaft body are arranged coaxially (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, ‘363 discloses (Fig. 2) the watch according to claim 7, comprising a third pointer (27), wherein the wheel train mechanism includes a third rotary wheel ([0002]: a “gear train” drives the pointers, implying a wheel) having a third shaft body (26) to which the third pointer is fixed, and wherein the first shaft body, the second shaft body, and the third shaft body are arranged coaxially (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, ‘363 discloses (Fig. 2) the watch according to claim 1, comprising: a dial (15) arranged on a back side of the first pointer (17) and the first magnetic body (16); and an antimagnetic plate arranged on a back side of the dial. Paragraph [0003] teaches that the dial is glass, which is anti-magnetic.
Regarding claim 12, ‘363 discloses (Fig. 2) the watch according to claim 1, wherein the first magnetic body (16) and the second magnetic body (13) respectively have shaft holes in the center (Fig. 2), wherein the first and second magnetic bodies are magnetized in a radial direction (Fig. 2 shows the magnets extending radially).
‘363 does not explicitly show the first and second magnetic bodies having annular shapes polarized in a circumferential direction of rotation.
Yatsugi teaches (Fig. 4) magnetic bodies (211) that are annular in shape ([0009] discloses that 211 is a magnet).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shaped the magnets of ‘363 to be annular, as suggested by Yatsugi, so that they are polarized in a circumferential direction of rotation (an annular magnet with a cross-section as seen in Fig. 2 of ‘363 would polarized in such a manner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known shape for magnets that would predictably allow one magnet to hold the other through magnetism.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘363 in view of Yatsugi as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Dejima (JP2008232732).
Regarding claim 9, ‘363 in view of Yatsugi discloses the watch according to claim 8, wherein the second pointer is a minute hand ([0003]) and the third pointer is an hour hand ([0003]).
‘363 does not show the first pointer being a minute hand, the second pointer being a second hand and at least one of the first pointer, the first shaft body, the second pointer, the second shaft body, the third pointer, or the third shaft body being made of a non-magnetic material.
Yatsugi teaches a first pointer (12 in Fig. 9) being a minute hand ([0007]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first pointer of ‘363’ so that it is a minute hand, as suggested by Yatsugi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to fulfill the watch’s purpose of telling the time.
The combination of ‘363 and Yatsugi does not show the second pointer being a second hand and at least one of the first pointer, the first shaft body, the second pointer, the second shaft body, the third pointer, or the third shaft body being made of a non-magnetic material.
Second hands, minute hands, and hour hands of watches and clocks rotate. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the invention of ‘363 teaches a solution for rotating a hand of a watch.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the watch of ‘363 so that the second pointer is a second hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of accurately indicating the passage of time in seconds.
The combination of ‘363 and Yatsugi does not show at least one of the pointers and shaft bodies being made of non-magnetic material.
Dejima teaches pointers made of non-magnetic material ([0018] in the translation).
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 pointers of ‘363 for the non-magnetic pointers of Dejima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution so that the magnets of ‘363 would not impede the timekeeping rotation of the pointers of ‘363.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘363 in view of Yatsugi as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hosobuchi (US 2017/0068220).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of ‘363 and Yatsugi discloses the watch according to claim 1, but does not show the magnetic bodies being samarium cobalt magnets.
Hosobuchi teaches samarium cobalt magnets ([0088]).
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 magnets of ‘363 for the samarium cobalt magnets of Hosobuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known material for predictable holding magnets together through magnetism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. In particular, although the primary reference ‘363 does not disclose a support member extending through a shaft hole of the first magnetic body to a shaft hole of the second magnetic body, the secondary reference Yatsugi does. The new ground of rejection argues for a new substitution/combination that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
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 2833
/EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833