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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “the present disclosure”, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "A case" in Line 1. It is not clear if this case is the same as the one already recited in Line 3 of Claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner will assume that it is the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0006775) in view of Hurni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0301368). Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9, Kan discloses a component (3) comprising: a circumferential rim base (2a) which is provided with an attachment hole (Fig. 2) and attached to a case (2); a center base (11) which is arranged in the attachment hole of the circumferential rim base so as to be attached to the circumferential rim base; and a terminal (12) provided in the center base in a manner to be exposed from the center base, wherein the center base is formed of insulative first resin (Paragraph 0027), wherein the circumferential rim base is formed of conductive second resin (Paragraph 0025), and wherein the center base and the circumferential rim base are integrally formed by an outer circumferential surface (lower surface of 11) of the center base and an outer circumferential surface (upper surface of 2a) of the circumferential rim base being attached to each other.
Kan discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the use of welding to attach the center base and the circumferential rim base to each other.
Hurni teaches a timepiece (Abstract) having a component (1) using welding (Paragraph 0019) to attach bases and components (1, 2, 13) to each other.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the component of Kan by using welding as taught in Hurni in order to attach the bases in stronger and more durable manner.
Regarding Claim 2, Kan discloses the center base and the circumferential rim base being integrally formed by an outer circumferential surface (lower surface of 11) of the center base and an outer circumferential surface (upper surface of 2a) of the circumferential rim base.
Regarding Claims 3-5, the combination of Kan and Hurni discloses substantially the claimed invention expect for the circumferential rim base being formed of fiber-reinforced resin or the circumferential rim base is formed of carbon fiber resin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the circumferential rim base being formed of fiber-reinforced resin or the circumferential rim base is formed of carbon fiber resin in order to make the component stronger, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 6, Kan discloses the center base including a main body (body of 11) to which the terminal is attached and which is arranged in the attachment hole of the circumferential rim base, and a flange (lower part of 11) which is provided on an outer circumferential part of the main body and attached to an inner surface of the attachment hole of the circumferential rim base.
Regarding Claim 7, Kan discloses the flange being formed such that a sideward projecting length from an outer circumferential surface (lower surface of 11) of the main body is longer than a length (Fig. 2) of the circumferential rim base in a thickness direction (Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses timepieces, similar to Applicant’s claimed invention, having components with bases and terminals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN A LEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 S Luebke can be reached on 5712722009. 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.
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833