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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 2, the “limiting structure” is a rigid stop that the stem abuts against to limit the stem’s translational motion (see limiting structure 51 and stem 22 in the figures).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 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.
Claims 9 and 20 recite the limitation “wherein the an inner wall.” This limitation is idiomatically incorrect and indefinite because whether it refers to a new or previously unmentioned inner wall is unknown. It has been read as -wherein an inner wall-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen (US 20170185048) in view of Dominique (EP 2579103).
Regarding claim 1, Yuen discloses a smartwatch with a crown (title, Fig. 1, and [0084]).
Yuen does not show the smartwatch comprising: an internal mechanism case comprising an outer side; a guide rod disposed on the internal mechanism case; a case detachably coupled to the outer side, wherein the case comprises a through hole opposite the guide rod; a crown comprising: a stem, wherein at least a part of the stem extends through the through hole, and wherein the stem comprises a first end adjacent to the guide rod and comprises a second end; and a knob located on the second end, wherein the stem is configured to: move in an axial direction and approach the guide rod when the knob is subject to pressure; move in the axial direction and away from the guide rod when the knob is subject to a pulling force; and rotate and drive the guide rod to rotate when the knob is subject to a rotation force.
Dominique teaches (Figs. 4-5) a watch comprising: an internal mechanism case ([0002] of the translation: “watch movement”) comprising an outer side ([0044]: the side that connects to rod 2b); a guide rod (2b) disposed on the internal mechanism case ([0044]); a case (4) detachably coupled to the outer side (Figs. 4-5), wherein the case comprises a through hole opposite the guide rod (Fig. 4: through hole in which 2a fits); a crown (Fig. 4) comprising: a stem (2), wherein at least a part of the stem extends through the through hole (Figs. 4-5), and wherein the stem comprises a first end (2a, 14a) adjacent to the guide rod and comprises a second end (opposite end of 2); and a knob (1, 9) located on the second end, wherein the stem is configured to: move in an axial direction and approach the guide rod when the knob is subject to pressure (Fig. 4); move in the axial direction and away from the guide rod when the knob is subject to a pulling force (Fig. 5); and rotate and drive the guide rod to rotate when the knob is subject to a rotation force ([0046]).
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 Yuen’s crown for Dominique’s crown and guide rod. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of being able to control a watch using a crown for a long time ([0006]-[0007] of Dominique).
Regarding claim 5, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Figs. 3-4 of Domonique) the smartwatch of according to claim 1, wherein the knob (1, 9) comprises: a top plate (1) coupled to the second end (where 2 and 15 connect) and comprising an edge; and a side plate (9) extending along the edge and disposed around the stem (2), wherein the knob further comprises a groove that is defined by the side plate, the top plate, and the stem and that faces the guide rod. See image below and Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
245
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Fig. 5 of Dominique) the smartwatch of claim 1, further comprising: a rotation limiting part (14a); and a rotation limiting groove (14b); wherein the rotation limiting part is disposed at the first end of the stem (2a) and the rotation limiting groove is disposed at an end that is of the guide rod (2b) that is proximate to the through hole ([0028], [0044], and Fig. 4); wherein the rotation limiting part is configured to engage with the rotation limiting groove when the stem moves in the axial direction and approaches and touches the guide rod (Fig. 4), and wherein the stem is configured to rotate and drive the guide rod to rotate through engagement between the rotation limiting part and the rotation limiting groove when the rotation limiting part is engaged with the rotation limiting groove and when the knob is subject to the rotation force ([0046] of Dominique).
Regarding claim 13, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Figs. 4-5 of Dominique) the smartwatch of claim 1, further comprising: a driving end (14a) disposed at the first end of the stem (2a); a driven housing (14b) disposed at an end of the guide rod (2b) that is proximate to the through hole ([0028], [0044], and Fig. 4); wherein the driving gear is configured to mesh with the driven gear when the stem moves in the axial direction and approaches and touches the guide rod (Fig. 4), and wherein the stem is configured to rotate and drive the guide rod to rotate via the driving gear and the driven gear when the driving gear meshes with the driven gear and when the knob is subject to the rotation force ([0046] of Dominique).
The combination of Yun and Dominique does not disclose the driving end and driven housing being a driving gear and a driven gear.
Dominique teaches the driving end and driven housing having complementary polygonal shapes ([0046]).
Gears are toothed wheels which mesh with one another due to their complementary polygonal shapes.
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 Yun in view of Dominique’s driving end and driven housing for a driving gear and driven gear. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of meshing two structures together so that they may rotate one another.
Regarding claim 14, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Figs. 4-5) the smartwatch of claim 13, further comprising a guide rod groove (14b and [0045]: “housing”) disposed at the end of the guide rod that is proximate to the through hole, wherein the driven gear (14a) is disposed in the guide rod groove (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Figs. 4-5) the smartwatch of claim 13, further comprising: a first guide surface (14a) disposed at a first end part of the driving gear (14a); and a second guide surface (14b) disposed at a second end part of the driven gear (14b).
Regarding claim 17, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Fig. 4) the smartwatch according the of claim 1, further comprising: a groove disposed around the guide rod (see image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
208
257
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of Yuen and Dominique does not show the groove being a waterproof groove, and a sealing ring disposed in the waterproof groove.
Dominique teaches (Fig. 4) a waterproof groove (8a) and a sealing ring (13) disposed in the waterproof groove ([0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a waterproof groove to Yuen and Dominique’s guide rod groove, as suggested by Dominique. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition to prevent water from leaking into the timepiece.
Claims 2 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Dominique as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Vuille et al. (US 20190018369).
Regarding claim 2, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses the smartwatch of claim 1.
Yuen does not show a crown tube fastened to the case and comprising an inner cavity coaxially disposed in the through hole, wherein the stem extends through the inner cavity ; and a limiting structure disposed on the crown tube and configured to limit a position of the stem when the stem moves in the axial direction away from the guide rod to prevent the stem from being separated from the crown tube.
Dominique teaches (Figs. 3-4 of Dominique) the smartwatch of claim 1, further comprising: a crown tube (3) fastened to the case (4) and comprising an inner cavity coaxially disposed in the through hole, wherein the stem extends through the inner cavity (Figs. 3-4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Dominique’s crown tube with Yuen’s smartwatch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to achieve the predictable result of being able to control a watch using a crown for a long time ([0006]-[0007] of Dominique).
The combination of Yuen and Dominique does not show a limiting structure disposed on the crown tube and configured to limit a position of the stem when the stem moves in the axial direction away from the guide rod to prevent the stem from being separated from the crown tube.
Vuille teaches (Fig. 1) a limiting structure (6) disposed on a crown tube (3) and configured to limit a position of a stem (5) when the stem moves in the axial direction away from a case (abstract: “watch case”).
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 Vuille’s limiting structure with Yuen in view of Dominique’s crown tube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that the smartwatch is held together and does not fall apart.
Regarding claims 18-19, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Figs. 3-4 of Domonique) the smartwatch of according to claim 2, wherein the knob (1, 9) comprises: a top plate (1) comprising an edge (Fig. 3); and a side plate (9) extending along the edge and disposed around the stem (2); and a groove that is defined by the side plate, the top plate, and the stem and that faces the guide rod. See image below and Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
245
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Dominique and Vuille as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Briswalter et al. (US 20140169144).
Regarding claim 9, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Fig. 4 of Dominique) the smartwatch of claim 2, wherein the stem (2, 10, 12) comprises: a knob fitting part (12) fastened to the knob (1, 9), having a cylindrical structure (Fig. 4) facing the guide rod (2b); and a guide rod fitting part comprising: a transmission part (middle of 2) and a second side (10) located distal from the transmission part and that is further located in the cylindrical structure (Fig. 4).
The combination of Yuen and Dominique does not show an inner wall of the cylindrical structure comprising an internal thread, a limiting and blocking part located between the limiting structure and the guide rod, and an external thread part located on the second side threadedly coupled to the cylindrical structure.
Vuille teaches (Fig. 1) a limiting and blocking part (bottom of 5) located between a limiting structure (6) and a watch case interior (Fig. 1).
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 Vuille’s limiting and blocking part with Yuen in view of Dominique’s guide rod fitting part and second side. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that the limiting and blocking part may engage with the limiting structure to hold the smartwatch together and prevent it from falling apart.
The combination of Yuen, Dominique, and Vuille does not show an inner wall of the cylindrical structure comprising an internal thread and an external thread part located on the second side threadedly coupled to the cylindrical structure.
Briswalter teaches (Fig. 2) an inner wall of a cylindrical structure (8) comprising an internal thread (82) threadedly coupled to an external thread part (21) located on a second side (2).
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Dominique and Vuille as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Bolle (US 2237860).
Regarding claim 3, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses the smartwatch of claim 2.
The combination of Yuen and Dominique does not show a spring structure located between the crown tube and stem.
Bolle teaches (Fig. 5) a spring structure (16) located between a crown tube (17) and stem (of knob 2).
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 Bolle’s spring structure with Yuen in view of Dominique’s smartwatch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to reduce abrasive wear (Bolle, page 2, column 2, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 20, Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Fig. 4 of Dominique) the smartwatch of claim 3, wherein the stem (2, 10, 12) comprises: a knob fitting part (12) fastened to the knob (1, 9), having a cylindrical structure (Fig. 4) facing the guide rod (2b); and a guide rod fitting part comprising: a transmission part (middle of 2) and a second side (10) located distal from the transmission part and that is further located in the cylindrical structure (Fig. 4).
The combination of Yuen and Dominique does not show an inner wall of the cylindrical structure comprising an internal thread, a limiting and blocking part located between the limiting structure and the guide rod, and an external thread part located on the second side threadedly coupled to the cylindrical structure.
Vuille teaches (Fig. 1) a limiting and blocking part (bottom of 5) located between a limiting structure (6) and a watch case interior (Fig. 1).
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 Vuille’s limiting and blocking part with Yuen in view of Dominique’s guide rod fitting part and second side. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that the limiting and blocking part may engage with the limiting structure to hold the smartwatch together and prevent it from falling apart.
The combination of Yuen, Dominique, and Vuille does not show an inner wall of the cylindrical structure comprising an internal thread and an external thread part located on the second side threadedly coupled to the cylindrical structure.
Briswalter teaches (Fig. 2) an inner wall of a cylindrical structure (8) comprising an internal thread (82) threadedly coupled to an external thread part (21) located on a second side (2).
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 Briswalter’s internal thread with Dominique’s cylindrical structure and Briswalter’s external thread part with Dominique’s second side. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these combinations to securely attach the crown components together to create an operable crown that does not fall apart.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuen in view of Dominique as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 20030125745). Yuen in view of Dominique discloses (Figs. 4-5) the smartwatch of claim 1, wherein the stem (2) comprises a first end surface (14a) located at the first end (2a), wherein the guide rod (2b) comprises an end surface (14b) located proximate to the through hole (Fig. 4).
The combination of Yuen and Dominique does not disclose a second friction thread disposed on the end surface of the guide rod that is proximate to the through hole.
Dominique teaches the first end surface and the guide rod end surface having complementary shapes that engage one another ([0046]).
Tseng teaches (Fig. 3) a second friction thread (top of 3) disposed on an end surface of a rod (3) that is engaged by a stem (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 modified Yuen in view of Dominique’s guide rod end surface to have a second friction thread, as suggested by Tseng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of engaging two structures together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8, and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 4, the prior art does not show or suggest a spring structure comprising an annular spring comprising an annular support part and an opening part disposed on the annular support part comprising a plurality of annularly arranged elastic parts, wherein any two elastic parts are spaced from each other, and wherein a middle of each of the annularly arranged elastic parts is bent in a direction toward a stem, in combination with the other limitations.
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
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833