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 § 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber (DE 2710828) in view of Rachdi (US 2019/0018367) and Nishizawa (US 3,919,836).
Regarding claim 1, Huber discloses (Fig. 3) a timepiece ([0009] in the translation) comprising: a case having a cylindrical shape (Fig. 2 shows the watch having a circular shape and Fig. 3 shows the watch having a thickness; the watch is therefore cylindrical); and a movement ([0001]) accommodated in the case, the movement including a timepiece component, a first magnetic shield (7) component covering at least a portion (5), and a second magnetic shield (6) component covering at least a portion of a side surface of the timepiece component (Fig. 3), wherein the first magnetic shield component includes an overlapping region overlapping the second magnetic shield component in plan view as viewed from a direction perpendicular to the case back ([0014]) .
Huber does not show the timepiece comprising a case back including a transmissive region and covering one opening of the case; and the first magnetic shield component covering at least a portion on a case base side of the timepiece component, the first and second magnetic shield components being disposed in contact with each other in the overlapping region.
Rachdi teaches a timepiece comprising a case back including a transmissive region covering one opening of the case ([0003]).
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 Huber’s case back for Rachdi’s case back. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a watch with an aesthetic visual appearance ([0003 of Rachdi).
The combination of Huber and Rachdi does not show the first magnetic shield component covering at least a portion on a case back side of the timepiece component, the first and second magnetic shield components being disposed in contact with each other in the overlapping region.
Nishizawa teaches (Fig. 2) a first magnetic shield component covering at least a portion (10) on a case back side (12) of a timepiece component 10).
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 Huber’s magnetic shield components so that they cover at least a portion on a case back side of the timepiece component, as suggested by Nishizawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to protect the watch’s internal components from being magnetized and affected by magnetic fields.
The combination of Huber, Rachdi, and Nishizawa does not show the first and second magnetic shield components being disposed in contact with each other.
Huber teaches that the two magnetic shields “together form an anti-magnetic screen which does not create any interruption in continuity” ([0014]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lack of contact between two structures would create a gap in continuity.
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 Huber’s first and second magnetic shield components so that they are disposed in contact with each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a protective anti-magnetic screen that prevents incidental magnetic fields from magnetizing Huber’s watch.
Regarding claim 2, Huber discloses the timepiece according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the overlapping regions are provided. Fig. 3 of Huber shows a cross-sectional view of the timepiece and Fig. 2 shows that the timepiece is circular, so the overlapping regions between shields 6 and 7 are a plurality that extends along the circumference of the shields.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Rachdi and Nishizawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sakata et al. (US 2020/00301370).
Regarding claim 5, Huber discloses the timepiece according to claim 1.
The combination of Huber, Rachdi, and Nishizawa does not show the timepiece component being a coil block including a coil and stator.
Sakata teaches a magnetic shield covering a timepiece component that is a coil block ([0007]: “coil winding core”) and stator ([0007]).
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 Sakata’s timepiece component with Huber’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create an electronic timepiece that is less affected by magnetic interference so as to keep time accurately.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Rachdi, Nishizawa, and Sakata as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Hara (US 6,367,966).
Regarding claim 6, Huber discloses the timepiece according to claim 5.
The combination of Huber, Rachdi, Nishizawa, and Sakata does not show the movement including a mechanical energy source and the coil block constituting a generator configured to convert energy from the mechanical energy source into electric power.
Hara teaches (column 1, lines 15-18) a movement including a mechanical energy source (“mainspring”) and the coil block constituting a generator (“generator”) configured to convert energy from the mechanical energy source into electric power. See also column 3, lines 24-25 teaching the generator being a coil.
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 Huber’s movement for Hara’s movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of keeping time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Rachdi, Nishizawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yokoo et al. (US 2018/0246476).
Regarding claim 7, Huber discloses the timepiece according to claim 1.
The combination of Huber, Rachdi, Nishizawa does not show the first and second magnetic shield components being contact with each other in the overlapping region by being fixed by a screw in an axial direction of the case.
Yokoo teaches (Figs. 4A-4B) magnetic shield components (31, 32) by screwing screws in an axial direction (see screw heads in Figs. 4A-4B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have screwed Huber’s shield components together using screws in an axial direction of the case, as suggested by Yokoo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a strong and secure connection that holds Huber’s watch together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Huber does not teach a magnetic shield because Huber inconsistently and paradoxically describes that a material with “high magnetic permeability” forms “an antimagnetic shield” (see pages 4-5 of Applicant’s remarks). However, in physics and engineering, magnetic permeability refers to how a material responds to and alters magnetic fields—materials with high magnetic permeability have a high magnetization that changes the surrounding field, and materials with a low magnetic permeability have a low magnetization that negligibly alters the field. Highly magnetic materials (in other words, high permeability materials) are desirable for magnetic shielding because they draw magnetic fields lines towards themselves. This redirection diverts the fields away from the object to be shielded. See the attached Permeability.pdf, which shows how metals have a high magnetic permeability while wood and water have a low permeability, and Shielding.pdf, which describes that magnetic shields are made of high permeability metals for the above reasons. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand that Huber’s disclosure is consistent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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 3, Huber discloses (Fig. 3) a first magnetic shield component (7) including a main body portion and a side portion extending from the main body portion to a side surface, and an overlapping portion provided continuously to the side portion and forming an overlapping region, and the overlapping portion being covered with the second magnetic shield component in plan view as viewed from the case back side. The prior art does not show or suggest a continuous portion between the main body portion and the side portion being covered with the bridge component in plan view as viewed from the case back side, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mitani (US 2014/0086026) shows an electronic timepiece with a magnetic screen ([0009]). Furukawa (US 2007/0086276) shows a watch with a stepped winding weight (480 in Fig. 3).
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
Prosecution Insights