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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuillemin (CH 703400) in view of Dal Busco (US 4,975,893).
Regarding claim 1, Vuillemin discloses (Fig. 2b) a watch case (title), comprising: a middle (1 and [0007] of the translation: “case body”); a bezel ([0007]); and a connecting ring (17) arranged so as to be able to rotate relative to the middle ([0008]) and by means of which the bezel is fastened to the middle ([0008]) in a position in which said bezel (2) is forced to bear against said ring by a resilient restoring force ([0022]: “pressure maintained on the bezel 2 against the action of the wavy spring washer”) generated by a resilient member (14), the connecting ring and the bezel being configured so that when the bezel is subjected to a force that goes against the resilient restoring force, members no longer cooperate with each other and thus allow rotational freedom between said connecting ring and said bezel ([0007]: “the bezel can, through a sequence of an axial movement towards the back of the case…be displaced relative to the retaining member”), the connecting ring and the bezel being further configured so as to be able to be separated when they are arranged in a predefined angular position relative to each other ([0007]: “only when the bezel is in one of these unstable angular positions, the bezel…can be axially released from said retaining device”).
Vuillemin also discloses (Fig. 2b) the connecting ring and bezel each comprising at least one member (19 of the ring 17 and 26 of the bezel 2) cooperating with each other when the bezel is fastened to the middle (Fig. 2b).
Vuillemin does not show the at least one members being interlocking members that eliminate any relative mobility between said connecting ring and said bezel.
Dal Busco teaches (Fig. 1) a connecting ring (23) and a bezel (19) each comprising at least one interlocking member (20, 23b) cooperating with each other when the bezel is fastened to a middle (1), in order to eliminate any relative mobility between said connecting ring and said bezel (abstract teaches that the bezel and ring are fastened).
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 Vuillemin’s ring’s and bezel’s members for Dal Busco’s interlocking members. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a secure, tight connection between the bezel and the ring.
Regarding claim 2, Vuillemin in view of Dal Busco discloses (Vuillemin, Fig. 2) the watch case according to claim 1, wherein the connecting ring (17) comprises a peripheral part (18) arranged against a bearing surface (8) of the middle (1).
Vuillemin does not show the connecting ring comprising a peripheral shoulder by means of which the shoulder is arranged in abutment against an axial bearing surface of the middle formed by a radial lip.
Dal Busco teaches (Fig. 1) a connecting ring (23) comprising a peripheral shoulder (26) by means of which the shoulder is arranged in abutment against an axial bearing surface (27) of the middle (1) formed by a radial lip (27).
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 Vuillemin’s peripheral part and middle bearing surface for Dal Busco’s peripheral shoulder and axial bearing surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a secure, tight connection between the ring and the middle.
Regarding claim 3, Vuillemin in view of Dal Busco discloses (Dal Busco, Fig. 1) the watch case (1) according to claim 2, wherein the interlocking members (20, 23b) of the bezel (19) and of the connecting ring (23) respectively comprise a coupling element (20, 23b), said coupling elements having complementary shapes and cooperating with one another when the bezel is fastened to the middle (Fig. 1) and being separated from one another when the bezel is subjected to a force that goes against the resilient restoring force. As the bezel’s interlocking member is below the ring’s interlocking member, when the bezel is subjected to a downwards force, the bezel’s interlocking member must move down and away from the ring’s interlocking member.
Regarding claim 4, Vuillemin teaches the watch case according to claim 3, wherein the coupling elements are configured, when the bezel is subjected to a force that goes against the resilient restoring force, to prevent the rotation of the bezel relative to the connecting ring in a first direction of rotation and to allow its rotation in a second direction of rotation opposite to the first direction of rotation ([0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Vuillemin in view of Dal Busco discloses the watch case according to claim 3, wherein the interlocking members of the bezel and of the connecting ring respectively comprise a translation-stopping element (Dal Busco, Fig. 1, 20 and 23b), said translation-stopping elements cooperating with each other when the bezel is fastened to the middle (Dal Busco, Fig. 1 and abstract) and being released from each other when the coupling elements are separated from each other and when the bezel and the connecting ring are arranged in the predefined angular position (Vuillemin, [0007]: “unstable angular positions”]). Paragraph [0007] of Vuillemin discloses the bezel being released and removed from the ring—the translation-stopping elements must therefore be separated.
Regarding claim 8, Vuillemin in view of Dal Busco discloses (Fig. 1 of Dal Busco) the watch case according to claim 7, wherein the translation-stopping elements of the bezel and of the connecting ring are formed respectively by a radial tongue (20, 23b), the tongues extending in opposite directions and each comprising an interface face via which they rest against one another when the bezel is fastened to the middle (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
214
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuillemin in view of Dal Busco, and further in view of Lee (US 2017/0048994).
Regarding claim 5, Vuillemin discloses the watch case according to claim 1, wherein the connecting ring comprises a toothing ([0015]) cooperating with an indexing element ([0015) fastened to the middle ([0014]: “the watch case…is further equipped with indexing organs”).
The combination of Vuillemin and Dal Busco does not show the indexing element being resilient.
Lee teaches a resilient indexing element (102, 105 in Fig. 5B).
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 Vuillemin’s indexing element for Lee’s resilient indexing element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of facilitating rotation, holding the bezel in position, and communicating to a user when a bezel has been rotated ([0090] of Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Vuillemin discloses the watch case according to claim 4, wherein the connecting ring comprises a toothing cooperating with an indexing element ([0015]) fastened to the middle ([0014]), the toothing being shaped so as to allow rotation of the connecting ring only in the first direction of rotation ([0015]).
The combination of Vuillemin and Dal Busco does not show the indexing element being resilient.
Lee teaches a resilient indexing element (102, 105 in Fig. 5B).
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 Vuillemin’s indexing element for Lee’s resilient indexing element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of facilitating rotation, holding the bezel in position, and communicating to a user when a bezel has been rotated ([0090] of Lee).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-04-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejection does not articulate which specific components are being substituted. The rejection states that “Vuillemin’s ring’s and bezel’s members” will be substituted, and also that “the connecting ring and bezel each [comprise] at least one member (19 of the ring 17 and 26 of the bezel 2).” The rejection mailed 2026-01-20 clearly states that 19 and 26 are the ring’s and bezel’s members.
Applicant cites MPEP 2141 (V) to argue that “the elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each elements performs separately.” In other words, a combination of references must perform more functions than the functions performed by the individual references to render the combination non-obvious. First, the rejection set forth in the office action is a substitution, not a combination, so the argument is moot. Second, even if there were a combination, Applicant states that Vuillemin has a portion that is “free in rotation” and Dal Busco has a ring “locked in rotation.” These functions are the functions performed by the individual references (see Applicant’s own citations of Vuillemin and Dal Busco), and Applicant does not list any additional functions born from the substitution/combination. Therefore, Applicant has not provided any evidence or argument that “the elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each elements performs separately”; on the contrary, Applicant appears to agree that the substitution/combination is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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 claim 9, Dal Busco discloses the interlocking members comprising (1) translation-stopping elements that cooperate with each other and (2) coupling elements with complementary shapes that cooperate with one another. 20 and 23b in Fig. 1 form both the translation-stopping elements and the coupling elements. However, Dal Busco does not show the coupling element being formed by a recess defined between two radial bankings, one of which is formed by a lateral end of the translation-stopping element of the connecting ring, and the coupling element of the bezel being formed by a radial lug intended to be engaged in said recess.
Wahler (US 20190187619) discloses (Figs. 1, 5, 7) a connecting ring (25) having a coupling element formed by a recess (40) defined between two radial bankings (26), one of which is formed by a lateral end of a translation-stopping element (26) of the connecting ring, and a coupling element (39) of a bezel (33) being formed by a radial lug (39) intended to be engaged in the recess. However, Wahler does not show the coupling elements being separated from one another when the bezel is subjected to a force that goes against a resilient restoring force, as claimed in claim 3 from which claim 9 depends.
The prior art does not show or suggest interlocking members of a bezel and connecting ring each comprising (1) coupling elements that separate from one another when the bezel is subjected to a force going against a resilient restoring force and (2) translation-stopping elements, wherein the coupling element of the ring is formed by a recess defined between two radial bankings, one of which is formed by a lateral end of the ring’s translation-stopping element, and the coupling element of the bezel is formed by a radial lug intended to be engaged in said recess, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art lacks interlocking members comprising a radial lug of a bezel and a recess defined between two radial bankings, one of which is formed by a lateral end of a translation-stopping element of a connecting ring 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.
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 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, 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 2831
Prosecution Insights