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 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 1-9 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 lacks antecedent bases for “the plate member” and “the support plate opening” in line 11. They have been read as -the plurality of plate members- and -the plurality of support plate openings-.
Claim 1 recites “provided in support plate” in the penultimate line. This limitation has ambiguous antecedent basis and has been read as -provided in the support plate-.
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 17-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macaluso (USD912545) in view of Schmitz (US20150021190).
Regarding claim 1, Macaluso discloses (Figs. 1-2) a timepiece (Fig. 1) comprising: a movement having a plurality of timepiece components (Fig. 1); and a dial including a decorative plate (see image below) provided on the movement and a support plate (see image below) provided on the decorative plate; wherein the decorative plate has a decorative plate ring member provided with a decorative plate opening (see image below) and a plurality of plate members coupled to a decorative plate inner circumference (see image below) of the decorative plate ring member; the support plate has a support plate ring member provided with a plurality of support plate openings (see image below) and a plurality of support members (see image below) coupled to a support plate inner circumference (see image below) of the support plate ring member; the plate member is provided below the plurality of support plate openings; and the plate member is visible through the plurality of support plate openings provided in the support plate, and the plate member intersects the plurality of support members in a plan view of the dial (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Macaluso does not show a plurality of plate members.
Schmitz teaches (Figs. 5-7) a plurality of plate members (members underneath support plate members 116) below a plurality of support plate openings (openings formed by intersecting support plate members 116), wherein the plurality of plate members intersect the plurality of support plate members (116) in a plan view of the dial (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated Macaluso’s plate member, as suggested by Schmitz, so that the plurality of plate members would be visible through and below the support plate openings and would intersect the plurality of support plate members. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to add visual contrast and contribute to the watch’s aesthetic appearance ([0137] of Schmitz).
Regarding claims 7-8, Macaluso discloses a plate member width of each of the plurality of plate members and a support member width of each of the plurality of support members (Fig. 1 of Macaluso).
The combination of Macaluso and Schmitz does not show the support member width of each of the plurality of support members being greater than the plate member width of each of the plurality of plate members.
However, the support member width being greater than the plate member width is, absent any criticality, only considered an obvious modification of the support member and plate member widths Macaluso in view of Buttet as the courts have held that a change in the relative dimensions of a device without any criticality is within the level of skill in the art that a person having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for an invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syste., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
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 support member width of Macaluso to be greater than the plate member width. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the support member to provide a desired, aesthetic appearance.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macaluso in view of Schmitz as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Buttet (US20170031321).
Regarding claim 2, Macaluso in view of Schmitz discloses the timepiece according to claim 1.
The combination of Macaluso and Schmitz does not show the support plate supporting a first part provided on a first support member of the plurality of support members.
Buttet teaches (Fig. 1) a support plate (11) supporting a first part (25) provided on a first support member (12).
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 Buttet’s first part with a first support member of Macaluso’s plurality of support members. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to ensure a secure positioning ([0023] of Buttet).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macaluso in view of Schmitz and Buttet as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Verdon (US 2020/0409309).
Regarding claim 3, Macaluso discloses (Fig. 1 of Macaluso) the timepiece according to claim 2, wherein the decorative plate includes a display plate supported by the plate member, the display plate being provided below the support plate (see image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of Macaluso, Schmitz, and Buttet does not show the display plate displaying an identification image, the display plate being provided below the support plate opening.
Verdon teaches (Figs. 2-4) a display plate (5) displaying an identification image (7).
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 Verdon’s identification image with Macaluso’s display plate, so that the display plate with the identification image is provided below the support plate opening. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create an inscription that is visible and has aesthetic appeal.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macaluso in view of Schmitz and Buttet, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koike (US 2018/0348706).
Regarding claim 6, Macaluso in view of Schmitz and Buttet discloses the timepiece according to claim 1.
The combination of Macaluso , Schmitz, and Buttet does not show the movement having a cover provided with an opening, so that a portion of the opening is provided below the decorative plate opening and the support plate opening.
Koike shows (Figs. 3-4) a movement (4 and 31-36) having a cover (5) provided with an opening (5A), so that a portion of the opening (5A) is provided below a decorative plate opening (8A) and a support plate opening (10A).
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 Koike’s movement cover and opening with Macaluso’s timepiece, so that the movement has a cover provided with an opening such that a portion of the opening is below the decorative plate opening and support plate opening. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to shield and position movement components while also revealing the movement’s visual appearance for aesthetic appeal.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macaluso in view of Schmitz and Buttet, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Christan (US 2022/0413443).
Regarding claim 9, Macaluso in view of Schmitz and Buttet discloses the timepiece according to claim 1.
The combination of Macaluso, Schmitz, and Buttet does not show the decorative plate in a first color, and the support plate in a second color different from the first color.
Christan teaches (Fig. 3) a decorative plate (120) in a first color (Fig. 3), and a support plate (110) in a second color different from the first color (Fig. 3).
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 colors of Macaluso’s decorative and support plates so that they are different. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a predictable design variation for creating a more aesthetic appearance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2025-12-30 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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 claims 4-5, the prior art does not show or suggest a first support member supporting a first part of a support plate and a second support member supporting a second and third part of the support plate, wherein the first part is a power reserve indicator, the second part is a seconds indicator, and the third part is a decorative part displaying a cap jewel, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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