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(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.
Claim 5 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites the limitation “wherein any second action on the first control member while the first timepiece function is returned to an initial state causes an action of adjusting or winding the second timepiece function.” This limitation is also rejected below under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is not clear if this limitation refers to the same “second action” introduced in claim 1 which requires use of antecedent basis or if this is a different limitation and means any second action as meaning any subsequent action. Interpreting this limitation in a manner avoiding the 112(b) rejection, using the latter interpretation, the claim runs into the issue that there is not support for any second action on the first control member causing what is required by claim 5. Any second action is so broad that it is impossible for the claim to be met. Breathing on the second control member would be an action on it. Breaking the second control member would be an action on it. The breadth of what could meet the limitation “any second action” is too much for this claim to include as the cause for action of adjusting or winding. Claim 5 lacks enablement for a first control member capable of causing the action of adjusting or winding the second timepiece function in response to any second action.
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 5, 8, 11, and 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.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites the limitation “wherein any second action on the first control member” and it is not clear if this is the same second action introduced in claim 1 or a separate limitation. This limitation must be either properly distinguished from the second action introduced in claim 1 or should be rewritten with proper antecedent basis to refer to the previously introduced limitation. Because the limitation recites “any” it seems to refer to a plurality of options for what may be a second action and thus is not referring to the same second action as that introduced in claim 1. For purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted such that “any second action” means any subsequent action.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites the limitation “causes a display of the second item of information to return to an initial state” and it is not clear if this is the same initial state introduced in claim 1 or a separate limitation. This limitation must be either properly distinguished from the initial state introduced in claim 1 or should be rewritten with proper antecedent basis to refer to the previously introduced limitation.
Claim 20 depends from claim 8 and is rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites the limitation “wherein, while the first timepiece function is in an initial state, the third action causes” and it is not clear if this is the same initial state introduced in claim 1 or a separate limitation. This limitation must be either properly distinguished from the initial state introduced in claim 1 or should be rewritten with proper antecedent basis to refer to the previously introduced limitation.
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, 12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farron et al. (US 20120182838 A1, hereinafter “Farron”).
Regarding Claim 1, Farron discloses a method of operating a counting device, the method comprising:
- performing a first action (push on push button) [43] on a first control member (40) causing a first timepiece function (chronograph function, such as moon phase) [0084] to be returned to an initial state [0075-0079, 0084], and then
- performing a second action (push on push button) [43] on the first control member causing an action of adjusting or winding a second timepiece function [0075-0079, 0084].
Regarding Claim 2, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first timepiece function and the second timepiece function are a single timepiece function [0084, same chronograph function, in particular moon phase].
Regarding Claim 3, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first function is a timing function or a chronograph function [0084].
Regarding Claim 4, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the adjusting or winding action is an incremental and/or sequential action [0079 “drive indicator 20 through one step”].
Regarding Claim 6, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first action is a pressing action on the first control member [0057] and/or wherein the second action is a pressing action on the first control member [0084, 0058].
Regarding Claim 7, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein third actions (pushing/pulling the stem into positions T1-T3) on a second control member (30) cause the first timepiece function to be sequentially activated and deactivated [0075-0079].
Regarding Claim 12, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses a counting device comprising hardware arranged and configured to implement the method as claimed in 1 [fig. 7].
Regarding Claim 15, Farron discloses the counting device as claimed in claim 12 and further discloses a timepiece comprising the counting device as claimed in claim 12 [0007].
Regarding Claim 16, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses that the counting device is part of a timepiece movement [0054].
Regarding Claim 17, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses the counting device is a countdown device [0061].
Regarding Claim 18, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 17, and further discloses that the first function is a countdown function [0061].
Regarding Claim 19, Farron discloses the method as claimed in claim 7, and further discloses that the third actions are pressing actions [0075-0079, 0084].
Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gabathuler et al. (EP 3002643 A2, hereinafter “Gabathuler”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gabathuler discloses a method of operating a counting device, the method comprising:
- performing a first action (pushing button) on a first control member (30) causing a first timepiece function to be returned to an initial state [0025], and then
- performing a second action (pushing button) on the first control member causing an action of adjusting or winding a second timepiece function [0026].
Regarding Claim 9, Gabathuler discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses that the first action causes:
- a control lever (64) to pivot [0025],
- pivoting of the control lever causing a hammer (47, 48, 49) to act on a mobile for returning to a starting position (58 , 59, 60) [0025] [fig. 5], and
- the hammer releasing a locking lever (55) so that the locking lever is placed in a locking position locking the hammer in interacting position in which the hammer interacts with the mobile for returning to the starting position [fig. 5] and releases an incrementing pawl (65) [0025].
Regarding Claim 10, Gabathuler discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, and further discloses that
the second action causes:
- the control lever to pivot [0026],
- the control lever causing the incrementing pawl to move so that the incrementing pawl interacts with an incrementing mobile (31) in order to make the incrementing mobile rotate by one pitch [0026].
Regarding Claim 12, Gabathuler discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses a counting device comprising hardware (0024-0026) [figs. 4-6] arranged and configured to implement the method as claimed in 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Gabathuler discloses counting device as claimed in claim 12 and further discloses that the hardware comprise:
- a first control member (30),
- a second control member (64),
- a control cam (60),
- an incrementing pawl (65),
- a hammer (47, 48, 49),
- a locking lever (55),
- a mobile for returning to the starting position (58, 59), and
- an incrementing mobile (31) [figs. 4-6].
Regarding Claim 14, Gabathuler discloses counting device as claimed in claim 13 and further discloses that the hardware comprise a control lever (64) and wherein the first control member (30) interacts with the control lever [0025] [fig. 5], the control lever being able to act on the hammer and on the incrementing pawl [fig. 5].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 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 8, prior art does not disclose a method of operating a counting device comprising a fourth action, on the first control member while the first timepiece function is in an activation state causes a display of the second item of information to return to an initial state and a display of the first information to be set to a closest full item of information. While prior art such as Bonvin et al. (US 20070091727 A1) does disclose a method including all of the limitations of claim 1 and wherein the first timepiece function is a chronograph timer function displaying a first item of information and a second item of information (minutes and seconds information) [claim 6], an action which causes both the second item of information to return to its initial state and the first information to return to a closest full item of information is not provided in the prior art in combination with the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 20 depends on claim 8 and is allowable therein.
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lamarche (CH 704705 A2) discloses a countdown mechanism for actuating a visual remaining time indicator provided with mobiles that provide an indication of a remaining time until the end of a time interval and an adjusting rod defines total duration of the time interval, with a controller that determines a starting function of a timer.
Wyssbrod (EP 2073078 A1) discloses a bistable hammer for a chronograph mechanism mounted in translation between an inactive position and an active position, the hammer is elongated from heart-pieces connected to an indicator unit and exerts zero setting force against the heart-pieces in the inactive and active positions.
Silko (CH 710898 A2) discloses a timepiece type timepiece comprising a control mechanism including an actuator for actuating said repetitive impactor, and further comprising a trigger lock automatically activated immediately after the triggering of said repetitive impactor.
Forsey et al. (US 7445374 B2) discloses a chronograph watch movement, comprising a chronograph mechanism, including: a chronograph gear-train comprising first and second wheels completing a revolution in sixty seconds and a revolution in a fraction of an hour respectively and arranged in the center of the movement, a control device for starting and stopping the rotation of the chronograph gear-train, and a reset device, and switching means designed such that, upon activation, they connect the second wheel of the chronograph gear-train to a finishing mobile, so that the display means borne by the second wheel display the current time unit equivalent to that of the measured time.
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, 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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights