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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rest position” and “correction position” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In particular, the flat portion of the cam being in contact with the first arm in the rest position and a corner/angle of the cam being in contact with the first arm in the correct position as recited in claim 7 must be shown.
In claim 9, the strip-spring with a first end “integral with the arm and another end of which is free” must also be shown.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) because the figures are not drawn in solid, black lines.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the character “48” refers to both the feeler and the recess, while the character “49” refers to both the lever and the feeler. Though terms inside parentheses carry no patentable weight, the claim should be amended so that “48” refers to the feeler, “49” refers to the lever, and “42” refers to the recess for clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the active length” in line 1. The limitation has been read as -an active length-.
The phrase “the sprung balance type” in claims 1 and 14 lacks antecedent basis and is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “sprung balance type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What structures are required to be considered a “sprung balance type” is not clear and may have different answers to different persons skilled in the art. For the purposes of examination, “an oscillator of the sprung balance type” has been read as -a balance spring oscillator-
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the arm (60)" in the fourth-to-last line. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has been read as -the first arm (60)-.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “the sphere” in the penultimate line. It has been read as -the spherical block-.
Claim 3 recites a spherical inertial block comprising “a second ring (46) encircling the spherical inertial block.” A ring cannot encircle itself, so the second ring cannot encircle the spherical inertial block that the second ring is part of. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been read as -a second ring (46) encircling the large circle-.
Claim 9 has multiple antecedent bases for “the free end” in the third-to-last line as it can refer to the strip-spring’s free end or the first arm’s free end. It has been read as -the free end of the strip-spring-. See also claim 11’s “the free end” in claim 11’s last line.
Claim 10 has multiple antecedent bases for “the free end” in the third-to-last line as it can refer to the strip-spring’s free end or the second arm’s free end. It has been read as -the free end of the strip-spring-.
Claim 11 lacks antecedent basis for “the resilient stress” in line 3. It has been read as -a resilient stress of the free end of the strip-spring-.
Claim 11 has multiple antecedent bases for “the adjustment means” in line 3 because it may refer to claim 9’s adjustment means or claim 11’s “means for adjusting the resilient stress.” The limitation has been read as -the means for adjusting the resilient stress-.
Claim 11 recites the “the form of a screw” in line 3. It has been read as -a form of a screw- because screws have multiple forms and because the recitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11 has multiple antecedent bases for “the arm” in line 4, and has been read as -the first arm-.
Claim 12 has multiple antecedent bases for “the arm” in line 3. It has been read as -the first arm-
Claims 12-13 recite “the two pins (19)” in their respective line 4. These limitations have multiple antecedent bases and have been read as -the first pair of pins (19)-.
Claim 13 has multiple antecedent bases for “the arm” in line 3. It has been read as -the second arm-.
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, Bravo (US20190187618) discloses (Figs. 3-4) a device for autonomously adjusting the active length of a balance spring (title), wherein the device comprises: a first arm (30) and a second arm (16) each able to move between a rest position (Fig. 3) and a correction position (Fig. 4), the two arms cooperating with a first pair of pins (19). Bravo also discloses an inertial block (22) rotatable about an axis of a cam (24, 38) that moves as a function of gravity so that the movement of the block rotates the cam which in turn moves the arms ([0027], [0033]), the movement of the arms acting on the balance spring (5) to modify its length ([0029] and Fig. 4).
The prior art does not show or suggest a spherical inertial block rotatable about two mutually perpendicular axes and the two arms respectively cooperating with two pairs of pins angularly offset from one another so that the movement of the spherical block causes the first arm to translate a lever cooperating with the second arm, and to move and act on the balance spring to modify its active length.
Conclusion
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