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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments pertain essentially to the amendment language of the claims. Thus the new grounds of rejection responsive thereto is a the best response to the arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villard US 20160147196 in view of Monnin US 3262261.
With regard to claim 1 Villard discloses a part arranged to attach a balance spring (3 figure 1) of a horological movement (title), this balance spring (3) , wound in coils (balance spring – abstract; one having ordinary skill in the art would understand a balance spring to be wound in coils) in a plane, being delimited by first and second faces which extend at a distance from one another, this attachment part comprising elastically deformable clamping device (11, 12; paragraph 32 “FIGS. 1 and 2 illustrate these two open and closed positions of component 8 around balance spring 3. Lugs 11 and 12 clamp balance spring 3, preferably with pressure over the entire height of lateral surfaces 31 and 32 of the balance spring, and over the entire thickness L of stud 1.”; this disclosure reasonably conveys elastic deformation; see also figures 1, 2) which are arranged to be brought into contact with the balance spring (3) in order to exert a resilient clamping force on this balance spring so as to guarantee the immobilisation thereof (abstract; figures 1-3), this resilient clamping force being exerted along at least a first line of contact on the first face of the balance spring and along a contact surface on the second face (figures 1-3).
Villard does not disclose the claimed: first face and the second face being parallel to the plane of the coils. Monnin teaches securing the spring according to the faces parallel to the plane of the coil windings – figures 1, 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
303
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Doing so allows easy retention and allows rotation of the terminal end piece according to Monnin’s improvement over the prior art.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Villard’s system to incorporate an orientation and design that meets the limitation first face and the second face being parallel to the plane of the coils, as taught by Monnin. The reason for doing so would have been to allow the system to be easily connected and secured in a known way to allow control of the terminal position and adjustment thereof according to Monnin’s design and improvements in alignment, positioning, and adjustment of the time regulating spring. A reason for doing so is to secure the spring in a position that is very well determined as taught by Monnin.
With regard to claim 2 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the resilient clamping force is exerted on the first face of the balance spring along the first and second lines of contact (figures 1-3; the faces of contact are plainly visible).
With regard to claim 3 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 2, wherein the clamping devices takes the form of separate first and second clamping device which face one another (11, 12 figures 1-3).
With regard to claim 4 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 3, wherein the first and second clamping devices take the form of two elastically deformable arms (11, 12 figures 1-3; paragraph 32) , the free ends whereof facing one another being arranged to be brought into contact with the free end of the outer last coil of the balance spring in order to exert a resilient clamping force on this free end in a direction perpendicular to a plane in which the balance spring extends (figures 1-3, the orientation is plainly visible in the figures).
With regard to claim 5 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 4, wherein the attachment part takes the form of a tuning fork closing in on itself at the free ends facing the two arms (figures 1-3; the structure is of the form of a tuning fork. The clamping force is inward facing the two arms to close in on itself).
PNG
media_image3.png
267
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 8 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the assembly between the attachment part and the free end of the outer last coil of the balance spring is removable (it is not clear what this claim device as there is no antecedent basis for the assembly. The structures shown and taught are capable of removal and disassembly. Thus it is not apparent how to narrowly construe the claims as to overcome the prior art. Since the assembly lacks antecedent basis it have no unique or special meaning).
With regard to claim 9 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the attachment part is obtained by stamping and bending (the method of manufacture itself is not a patentable feature in a device claim. See MPEP 2113: “claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In the current instance the phrase stamping and bending reasonably conveys integral formation, although even that may be an overly narrow claim construction. None the less the structure set forth could reasonably be achieved including cutting and bending steps.)
With regard to claim 12 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the balance spring is provided with a plate (3) on which the clamping device exert the resilient clamping force to ensure the immobilisation thereof (the shape of the spring is planar and oblong consistent with the term plate).
With regard to claim 13 Villard and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the balance spring includes side faces that extend from the first face to the second face and, in a cross section of the balance spring, each of the side faces is longer than the first face and the second face (3 figure 1 of Villard; 3 figure 2 of Monnin).
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moal US 2022/0171335 in view of Monnin US 3262261.
With regard to claim 1 Moal discloses a part arranged to attach a balance spring (6 figure 1) of a horological movement (title; figure 1), this balance spring (2) , wound in coils (2 figures 1-3)), being delimited by first and second faces which extend at a distance from one another, this attachment part comprising elastically deformable clamping device (4, 5, 8, 9, 27, 28, 42, 43, 46, 47 figures 1-3) which are arranged to be brought into contact with the balance spring (2) in order to exert a resilient clamping force on this balance spring so as to guarantee the immobilisation thereof (figures 1-3), this resilient clamping force being exerted along at least a first line of contact on the first face of the balance spring and along a contact surface on the second face (figures 1-3).
Villard does not disclose the claimed: first face and the second face being parallel to the plane of the coils. Monnin teaches securing the spring according to the faces parallel to the plane of the coil windings – figures 1, 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
303
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Doing so allows easy retention and allows rotation of the terminal end piece according to Monnin’s improvement over the prior art.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Moal’s system to incorporate an orientation and design that meets the limitation first face and the second face being parallel to the plane of the coils, as taught by Monnin. The reason for doing so would have been to allow the system to be easily connected and secured in a known way to allow control of the terminal position and adjustment thereof according to Monnin’s design and improvements in alignment, positioning, and adjustment of the time regulating spring. A reason for doing so is to secure the spring in a position that is very well determined as taught by Monnin.
With regard to claim 2 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the resilient clamping force is exerted on the first face of the balance spring along the first and second lines of contact (figures 1-3; the faces of contact are plainly visible).
With regard to claim 3 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 2, wherein the clamping device take the form of separate first and second clamping device which face one another (8, 9, 27, 28, 42, 43 figures 1-3).
With regard to claim 4 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 3, wherein the first and second clamping device take the form of two elastically deformable arms (8, 9, 27, 28, 42, 43 figures 1-3 and associated structure) , the free ends whereof facing one another being arranged to be brought into contact with the free end of the outer last coil of the balance spring (2 figures 1-3) in order to exert a resilient clamping force on this free end in a direction perpendicular to a plane in which the balance spring extends (figures 1-3, the orientation is plainly visible in the figures).
With regard to claim 5 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 4, wherein the attachment part takes the form of a tuning fork (figures 1-3) closing in on itself at the free ends facing the two arms (figures 1-5; the structure is of the form of a tuning fork. The clamping force is inward facing the two arms to close in on itself).
With regard to claim 6 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the attachment part is provided with gripping device (44, 45 figure 3; 33, 34 figure 2, 8, 9 figure 1; 64, 65 figures 4-5) which are arranged to allow the device for clamping the free end of the outer last coil of the balance spring to be moved apart in order to release this free end (figures 1-5).
With regard to claim 7 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the attachment part comprises device for being mounted on a balance cock or around a pivot bearing of the balance (claim 15 -a balance wheel, wherein said timepiece resonator comprises a balance spring according to claim 1.Thus the system comprises device for being mounted on a balance cock to achieve an operable timepiece as disclosed.)
With regard to claim 8 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the assembly between the attachment part and the free end of the outer last coil of the balance spring is removable (it is not clear what this claim device as there is no antecedent basis for the assembly. The structures shown and taught are capable of removal and disassembly. Thus it is not apparent how to narrowly construe the claims as to overcome the prior art. Since the assembly lacks antecedent basis it have no unique or special meaning).
With regard to claim 9 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the attachment part is obtained by stamping and bending (the method of manufacture itself is not a patentable feature in a device claim. See MPEP 2113: “claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In the current instance the phrase stamping and bending reasonably conveys integral formation, although even that may be an overly narrow claim construction. None the less the structure set forth could reasonably be achieved including cutting and bending steps.)
With regard to claim 11 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the balance spring takes the form of a ribbon, the first and second faces whereof extend parallel to one another (2, figures 1-5).
With regard to claim 12 Moal and Villard teach an attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the balance spring is provided with a plate (2 figures 1-3) on which the clamping device exert the resilient clamping force to ensure the immobilisation thereof (the shape of the spring is planar and oblong consistent with the term plate).With regard to claim 13 Moal and Monnin teach the attachment part according to claim 1, wherein the balance spring includes side faces that extend from the first face to the second face and, in a cross section of the balance spring, each of the side faces is longer than the first face and the second face (3 figure 1 of Moal, paragraph 31; 3 figure 2 of Monnin).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villard (US 20160147196) in view of Monnin US 3262261 in further view of Lippuner (US 7824097).
With regard to claim 10 (depends from claim 1) Villard does not disclose the claimed: wherein the attachment part is made of a harder material than the material from which the balance spring is made.
It is well known to make springs from very soft materials. Gold and copper are often used for a variety of reasons, such as ductility and precious value (marketability). Lippuner teaches forming a silicon spring with a coating of golf – claims 1, 3. Lippuner teaches this combination to reduce static build up.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Villard’s system with a spring comprising at least one soft material such as gold such that: the attachment part is made of a harder material than the material from which the balance spring is made, as taught by Lippuner. The reason for doing so would have been to use luxury materials in a watch environment to increase the marketability thereof. Another reason for doing so would have been to reduce the static build up of charge of the spring as taught by Lippuner.
The material selection in Villard as set forth in paragraphs 72 through 112.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN KAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-8931. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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.
/SEAN KAYES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2844