Detailed Action begins on Page 3
Table of Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
Double Patenting 3
Claim Objections 3
Claim Interpretation 3
112(f) invoked with presence of “Means” 5
112(f) not invoked despite presence of “Means” 6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 7
Claims 1-15 7
Allowable Subject Matter 9
Citation of Relevant Art 11
Conclusion 12
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 .
Double Patenting
Provisional rejections of the present application on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting has been reviewed in consideration of the current claims being unpatentable over copending Application No. 18/426,573 and Application No. 18/430012. Despite the similarities in the claims of these applications there is NOT nonstatutory double patenting as each application requires several unique claim limitations separate from the other applications which do not arise to obviousness type non-statutory double patenting in view of related prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 14, it recites the limitation “the device for autonomous adjustment of the active length of the spiral in accordance with claim 1” and this should affirmatively recite “according to claim 1” or “of claim 1” instead of reciting “in accordance with claim 1”.
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:
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;
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
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.
112(f) invoked with presence of “Means”
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.
The claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “elastic biasing means configured to exert an elastic action on the arms for returning them in position” (line 23-24) but does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, to which this limitation is being interpreted to require is a rod secured to the arm and a leaf spring secured to the balance spring as recited in paragraph [0026] of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “elastic return means configured to exert an elastic action on the inertia blocks for returning them in position” (lines 34-36) but does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, to which this limitation is being interpreted to require is a pair of spring blades, or spring leaves, as recited in paragraph [0022] of the specification.
112(f) not invoked despite presence of “Means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “means for modifying the active length of the spiral” (line 8) and recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function in the limitations which follow.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “elastically-deformable adjustment means” and recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function by reciting the limitation “the adjustment means being in the form of a spring leaf”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “elastically-deformable adjustment means” and recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function by reciting the limitation “the adjustment means being in the form of a spring leaf”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “means for adjusting the elastic stress” and recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function by reciting the limitation “the adjustment means being in the form of a screw” when “the adjustment means” is interpreted to mean the “means for adjusting the elastic stress”.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “a second arm capable of moving between a rest position and a correction position of the device” and it is not clearly defined whether this references the same rest position and correction position as those introduced in the limitation “a first arm capable of moving between a rest position and a correction position of the device” or if these positions are different. Proper use of antecedent basis or a distinction between the limitations is required. For examination purposes, claim 1 will be interpreted such that it reads “a second arm capable of moving between [[a]] the rest position and [[a]] the correction position of the device”.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and are rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 6, it recites the limitation “a planar portion of each cam is in contact with an arm” and it is not clearly defined if “an arm” is meant to refer to either the first arm or the second arm previously introduced or if it is a separate and distinct limitation. For purposes of examination, “an arm” will be interpreted as referring to “one of the arms” like the limitation later provided in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites the limitation “the adjustment means being in the form of a spring leaf” and because there is both “elastically-deformable adjustment means” (claim 8) and “A device for independent adjustment of the active length of a spiral, for a balance-spiral type oscillator” (claim 1) it is not clearly defined which element is referred to by “the adjusting means”. For purposes of examination “the adjustment means” in claim 8 is interpreted to mean “the elastically-deformable adjustment means”.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites the limitation “the adjustment means being in the form of a spring leaf” and because there is both “elastically-deformable adjustment means” (claim 9) and “A device for independent adjustment of the active length of a spiral, for a balance-spiral type oscillator” (claim 1) it is not clearly defined which element is referred to by “the adjusting means”. For purposes of examination “the adjustment means” in claim 9 is interpreted to mean “the elastically-deformable adjustment means”.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites the limitation “the adjustment means being in the form of a screw” and because there is a limitation “means for adjusting the elastic stress” (claim 10), “elastically-deformable adjustment means” (claim 8), and “A device for independent adjustment of the active length of a spiral, for a balance-spiral type oscillator” (claim 1) and it is not clearly defined which element is referred to by “the adjusting means”. For purposes of examination “the adjustment means” in claim 10 is interpreted to mean “the means for adjusting the elastic stress”.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites the limitation “the arm being arranged so that it slides between the two pins” and it is not clear if “the two pins” refers to one of the previously introduced “a first pair of pins” and “a second pair of pins” or if it is meant to refer to the two sets of pins. For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as reciting “the first pair of pins and the second pair of pins” instead of “the two pins”.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites the limitation “the arm being arranged so that it passes between the two pins” and it is not clear if “the two pins” refers to one of the previously introduced “a first pair of pins” and “a second pair of pins” or if it is meant to refer to the two sets of pins. For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as reciting “the first pair of pins and the second pair of pins” instead of “the two pins”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, prior art does not disclose, taken alone or in combination, a device for independent adjustment of the active length of a spiral, for a balance-spiral type oscillator, according to claim 1.
The closest prior art is Bravo (US 20190187618 A1) which discloses a device for independent adjustment of the active length of a spiral, for a balance-spiral type oscillator, comprising a cock (12) mounted on a plate of a horological movement (2) and in which a balance shaft (7) pivots, the spiral (5) including an inner end secured to the balance shaft and an outer end secured to a balance spring stud (8) fastened to a balance spring stud holder (10) [0024], the balance spring stud holder being pivotably mounted on the cock concentrically with the balance shaft [0024], and means for modifying the active length of the spiral (6), the device moving between a rest position and a correction position [0021-0022] [figs. 3-4] and the means for modifying the active length of the spiral including an inertia block (22) and a first cam (24), a pair of pins (19), a pivot arm (16), and a deformable arm (30).
Bravo does not disclose a first arm having a first free end and a second end cooperating with a first pair of pins mounted on the balance spring stud holder, the first pair of pins being angularly offset relative to the stud, a second arm having a first free end and a second end cooperating with a second pair of pins mounted on the balance spring stud holder, the second pair of pins being angularly offset relative to the first pair of pins and to the stud, a rod secured to the arm and a leaf spring secured to the balance spring forming the elastic biasing means (required 112f interpretation), two inertia blocks or that the inertia block(s) are movable in translation, a second cam to simultaneously modify the active length of the spiral, or leaf springs forming elastic return means (required 112f interpretation) configured to exert elastic action on the inertia blocks.
Additional prior art does not provide a reasonably obvious combination with Bravo or any other related prior art to meet all of the missing limitations required by claim 1 in a single device.
Regarding Claims 2-15, they depend from claim 1 and would be allowable therein if rewritten or amended 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.
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hintze et al. (US 20060062088 A1) discloses a device for fine adjustment of a balance wheel/hairspring which includes, on the one hand, two screws respectively fixed in the balance cock and in the index to maneuver clamps by means of L-shaped rocking elements to fix the end of the balance spring and define its useful length, and on the other hand, a screw for immobilizing the index in a determined position, these three screws enabling a fine adjustment to be carried out.
Wiederreccth (EP 2980658 B1) discloses a device for assembling and adjusting a hairspring comprising a base, intended to be assembled to the balance bridge with an adjustable angular orientation and, comprising a substantially cylindrical bearing surface, of radius substantially equal to the radius of the end turn, and a bearing plate adjacent to the surface of support, the bearing surface and the support plate defining a service position of the terminal turn, a first arm extending from the base and carrying a locking member of the end turn arranged to maintain the latter bearing against the bearing surface.
Winkler et al. (US 20220091562 A1) discloses a horological resonator mechanism, including a structure and an anchoring unit from which is suspended at least one inertial element arranged to oscillate along a first degree of freedom in rotation RZ about a pivoting axis extending along a first direction Z, the inertial element being subjected to return forces exerted by a virtual pivot including a plurality of substantially longitudinal elastic strips, each fastened, at a first end to the anchoring unit, and at a second end to the inertial element.
Ito (JP 2016133312 A) discloses a hairspring adjustment mechanism includes: a regulator pin that is rotatable about a central axis of a balance with a hairspring and comes into contact with a hairspring of the balance with the hairspring; a first adjustment member that has a first assemblage part to which a tool is assembled and, with a rotating operation at a prescribed angle, rotates the regulator pin at a first pitch; and a second adjustment member that has a second assemblage part to which a tool is assembled and, with a rotating operation at a prescribed angle, rotates the regulator pin at a second pitch smaller than the first pitch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2844