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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a different color from the dial” in the third-to-last line should be -a different color from a color of the dial-. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
In claim 8, the “means for activating the light source” is a button ([0047]).
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 1-10 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 recites that the display device is “for watchmaking” in lines 1-2. However, the recited structure does not have any watchmaking capabilities. The limitation is suggested to be changed to -for timekeeping-.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the colour" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has been read as -a colour-.
Claim 2 is rejected because “’notch’-type band-stop filter” is ambiguous as to whether Applicant is positively reciting a notch or only referentially reciting a notch. Additionally, “notch-type” appears to be a redundant term of relative degree because the specification does not clearly set forth the difference between a band-stop filter and a notch-type band-stop filter, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A band-stop filter only allows frequencies of that band to pass; how a notch-type filter would be different is unclear because such a filter would operate in the same manner by only allowing frequencies of that notch to pass. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been read as -band-stop filter-.
Claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for “the colour” in line 2. It has been read as -a colour-.
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 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukens (US3798892) in view of Luca et al. (US20110032726).
Regarding claim 1, Lukens discloses (Figs. 4-5) a mobile luminous display device (title) for watchmaking, the display device including at least one dial (12c) and a first movable body (24), the first movable body being configured to move relative to the dial (Figs. 2-4) so as to indicate a plurality of positions on the dial (Figs. 2-4), wherein the display device comprises a light source (58) arranged to emit a light radiation through the dial (column 3, lines 5-7), and wherein the first movable body comprises a colour filter (column 2, lines 27) allowing modifying a colour of part of the light radiation passing through the first movable body, so that the first movable body has a different colour from the dial (column 2, lines 25-27), the light source comprising a spectrum of at least two different colours, the spectrum being of the RGB type. The light source emits white light (column 2, line 25), which comprises all colors of the visible spectrum. The spectrum is of the RGB type as the light source emits white light that gets filtered into another color by the movably body’s filter in the same manner as Applicant’s light source and movably body ([0051] of Applicant’s specification).
Lukens does not show the spectrum being discrete.
Luca teaches a light source comprising a discrete spectrum of at least two different colors, the spectrum being of the RGB type ([0004]).
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 Lukens’s light source for Luca’s light source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because LEDs are less expensive, longer-lasting, and more energy efficient.
Regarding claim 2, Lukens discloses the display device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the color filter is a “notch”-type band-stop filter. Lukens’s movable body filters red light (column 2, lines 25-27), so the band of electromagnetic radiation comprising red light is filtered.
Regarding claim 3, Lukens discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the color filter has a transmission spectrum configured to block a color from the discrete spectrum of the light source. Lukens’s movable body blocks red light (column 2, lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 4, Lukens in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the source comprises at least two RGB type lines. Luca teaches the source comprising red, green, and blue ([0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Lukens discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a color of the first movable body is variable according to its position relative to the dial (column 2, lines 34-43).
Regarding claim 9, Lukens discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising a second movable body, the second movable body including a second color filter (column 2, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 10, Lukens discloses a timepiece comprising the display device according to claim 1 (column 1, lines 10-15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukens in view of Luca as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Balchunas et al. (US3328953).
Regarding claim 6, Lukens in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Lukens and Luca does not show the dial being semi-transparent.
Balchunas teaches a translucent, or semi-transparent, dial (column 2, lines 63-4 and column 3, line 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 substituted Lukens’s dial material for Balchunas’s dial material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substation as a known material for predictably constructing a visible and legible dial that fulfills aesthetic desires.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukens in view of Luca as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Klopfenstein et al. (US8169858).
Regarding claim 7, Lukens in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Lukens and Luca does not show the device further comprising a protective crystal.
Klopfenstein teaches a display device with a protective crystal (abstract).
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 Klopfenstein’s crystal with Lukens’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to protect Lukens’s device from exterior damage.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukens in view of Luca as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Blanckaert et al. (US20120082012).
Regarding claim 8, Lukens in view of Luca discloses the display device according to claim 1.
The combination of Lukens and Luca does not show the device further comprising means for activating the light source via a button.
Blanckaert teaches a display device comprising means for activating a light source via a button ([0043]: “the lighting of light source…can be controlled…by pressure on a push-button”).
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 Blanckaert’s button with Lukens’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to predictably and conveniently turn on and off the light source at a user’s behest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rohner et al. (US20250138487) teaches a light source illuminating a rotating mask (Fig. 7A).
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