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. The following title is suggested: “TIMEPIECE DIAL WITH FOOT FOR PRECISE POSITIONING OF DIAL. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 2026-02-12 is acknowledged. Claim s 8-9 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2026-02-12. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn because they depend on claim 8, which is drawn to the unelected species. 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. Claims 2, 4-6, 10-12, and 15-16 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 2, 4, 11, and 16 recite “a smallest amount of play.” The term “smallest” is relative and renders the claims indefinite, because the term is not defined by the claim or the specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the invention’s scope. The specification says that the play may be less than 60, 40, or 20 microns; these ranges of play are not a singular “smallest amount of play.” Consequently, what the play should be is indefinite. Claim 4 recites the limitation "a clockwork movement" in line 4. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because whether it refers to the clockwork movement of claim 1 or a new clockwork movement is unknown. For the purposes of examination, it has been read as -the clockwork movement-. C laims 10-11, 15-16 are similarly rejected. 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, 3, 7, 10-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanrenaud (US 2013/0148484) in view of Hiranuma (US 2011/0228645). Regarding claim 1, Jeanrenaud discloses (Fig. 2) a dial (7) for a timepiece (title), the dial comprising: a dial plate (7), and at least one dial foot (9) extending along a foot axis (11), the at least one foot comprising: a shaping (9) oriented toward the dial plate and adapted to receive a mechanical action that presses the plate against a clockwork movement (5 and [0036]: foot 9 presses against movement 5), and a first zone of lower rigidity (bottom part of 9) configured or arranged to deform elastically and/or plastically ([0040]), in a direction mainly parallel to the foot axis (foot 9 moves and deforms parallel to the foot axis 11) as the mechanical action is applied to the shaping ([0036]), wherein the first zone of lower rigidity is arranged and/or configured to have a portion provided with a lower material profile (9 is lower with respect to dial 7) so as to constitute a portion of the dial that is able to be mainly deformed as the mechanical action is applied to the shaping (the foot 9 is mainly deformed rather than 7 because 9 is pressed against 7 and the movement). Jeanrenaud does not show the first zone of lower rigidity forming a flexible blade extending substantially perpendicular to the axis of the foot and set into a rest of the foot at one of ends thereof. Hiranuma teaches (Fig. 1) a first zone of lower rigidity forming a flexible blade (38) extending substantially perpendicular to an axis of a foot (31) and set into a rest of the foot at one of the ends thereof. The flexible blade 38 extends perpendicularly from the vertical axis of 31 and is set into the bottom end of 31 in 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 modified the foot shape of Jeanrenaud so that its first zone of lower rigidity forms a flexible blade extending substantially perpendicular to the axis of the foot and is set into a rest of the foot at one of the ends, as suggested by Hiranuma . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the hook shape would provide a more secure connection that allows for greater elastic deformation (see also [0042] of Jeanrenaud ). Regarding claim 3, Jeanrenaud discloses the dial according to claim 1, wherein the plate and the at least one foot are formed as a single piece ([0028]). Regarding claim 10, Jeanrenaud discloses (Fig. 2) an assembly comprising: the clockwork movement (5) comprising at least one housing (11) adapted to receive a foot (9) or a mount comprising at least one housing to receive a foot, and a dial (7) according to claim 1. See [0036]. Regarding claim 12, Jeanrenaud discloses (Fig. 2) the assembly according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the housings (right half of movement 5 on the right side of 11) has an oblong cross section oriented in the direction of another of the housings (left half of movement 5 on the left side of 11). Regarding claim 13, Jeanrenaud discloses a timepiece comprising a dial according to claim 1 (abstract). Regarding claim 14, Jeanrenaud discloses (Fig. 2) the dial according to claim 1, wherein the foot axis (11) is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the dial plate (7). Regarding claim 15, Jeanrenaud discloses (Fig. 2) the dial according to claim 1, wherein the shaping (9) is adapted to receive a mechanical action that presses the plate (7) against a frame (the upper border) of the clockwork movement (5). The plate is pressed onto the frame in a direction parallel to the axis 11 by the shaping 9. Regarding claims 7 and 17-18, Jeanrenaud discloses the dial according to claim 1, wherein the dial comprises several feet ([0009]) positioned relative to one another and/or relative to the dial plate with a positioning tolerance of less than 20 microns. Applicant’s specification discloses that forming the feet with the plate as one by any casting technique (page 6, lines 20-23) allows for positioning tolerances of less than 20 microns (page 7, lines 14-23). Jeanrenaud discloses that the feet are casting ([0046]) and machining ([0044]). Because Jeanrenaud’s feet are formed in the manner disclosed by Applicant as possessing precise positioning, Jeanrenaud’s feet therefore meet the claimed limitations. Regarding claim 11, Jeanrenaud discloses the assembly according to claim 10, wherein the foot comprises positioning surfaces (the surfaces of 9 that abut against the movement 5) adapted for positioning the dial with a smallest amount of play relative to a mount and/or relative to the clockwork movement (5), and wherein a radial clearance between at least one of the positioning surfaces and one of the housings is less than 40 microns. Applicant’s specification discloses that the radial clearance between the positioning surfaces and the housing is made possible through the precision with which the feet are positioned (page 7, lines 28-31). Then because Jeanrenaud’s feet are precisely positioned (see claim 7’s rejection), the radial clearance of Jeanrenaud’s positioning surface with respect to the movement is less than 40 microns. Claims 4-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeanrenaud in view of Hiranuma as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tamura (US 2019/0235443). Regarding claim 4, Jeanrenaud in view of Hiranuma discloses the dial according to claim 1. Jeanrenaud in view of Hiranuma does not show the foot comprising positioning surfaces adapted for positioning the dial with a smallest amount of play relative to a mount and/or the clockwork movement. Tamura teaches a part comprising positioning surfaces adapted for positioning the part with a smallest amount of play relative to a mount (see image below). The positioning surfaces fit into the corners of the mount so as to position the part and minimize play. 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 Jeanrenaud’s foot and movement so that the foot comprises positioning surfaces adapted for positioning the dial with a smallest amount of play relative to the clockwork movement, which forms the mount, as suggested by Tamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a secure connection that is resistant to shocks and unintended movement. Regarding claim 5, Jeanrenaud in view of Hiranuma and Tamura discloses the dial according to claim 4, wherein one or some of the positioning surfaces or all of the positioning surfaces are located at a proximal end of the foot. Fig. 2 of Jeanrenaud shows that the dial connects to the movement at the foot’s proximal end, so Tamura’s positioning surfaces must be located at the proximal end to fit the dial and movement together. Regarding claim 6, Jeanrenaud in view of Hiranuma and Tamura discloses the dial according to claim 4, wherein the foot comprises a base on which at least one of the positioning surfaces is formed, the base having cross sections transverse to the foot, of which cross sectional areas are greater than cross sectional areas of other zones of the foot. See the image below from Tamura, which shows a line dividing the base and other zones. Regarding claim 16, Jeanrenaud discloses (Fig. 2) the dial according to claim 4, wherein the positioning surfaces are adapted for positioning the dial (7) with a smallest amount of play relative to a frame (the upper border) of the clockwork movement (5). The positioning surfaces taught by Tamura position the dial onto the movement. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 2 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. Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not show or suggest a first thickness of a first zone of lower rigidity positioned at a distal end of a foot being at least two times smaller than a thickness of a smallest cross-section of the foot found between a shaping and a plate, in combination with the other limitations. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Villar (US 20200319595) discloses a foot driven into another structure having an axial and radial play of 15-25 microns ([0055]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1191 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F from 9:30-5:30 PT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Renee Luebke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 2831 /EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831