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 § 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 8-10 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 8 recites the claimed term “potentially” but it is not clear what claimed scope of “potentially self-starting” means. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for depending on claim 8.
Regarding claim 13, the term “thin” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perry, US 3,538,705.
Regarding claim 1, Perry discloses a timepiece escapement mechanism, comprising at least one lever (10) and at least one escapement wheel (12), said at least one lever being arranged to cooperate with an inertial mass of a mechanical oscillator (26), and subjected, directly or indirectly, to the action of elastic return device (balance spring) included in said mechanical oscillator and, said at least one lever being arranged to further cooperate, at pallets (16, 18) carried by or included in said lever, with teeth (20) included in said at least one escapement wheel, wherein at least one said pallet and/or at least one said tooth includes an impulse zone including two zones (Fig 9 and see column 6 line 1), one for an angular portion where said elastic return device tend to drive said escapement wheel, and the other for another angular portion where said elastic return device tend to oppose said escapement wheel, said two zones being arranged so as to minimise the maximum moment of said elastic return device seen by said escapement wheel (col. 6 lines 1-25, “to provide greater energy during the initial impulse period and less energy during the latter part of the period to provide less input torque motion sensitivity and decrease the possibility of setting on impulse surfaces as hereinafter more fully described” is interpreted here to mean minimizing the maximum moment of return).
Regarding claim 8, Perry discloses the timepiece escapement mechanism is potentially self-starting (“self-starting”, col. 6 line 12).
Regarding claim 9, Perry discloses the escapement is a Swiss lever escapement (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Perry discloses a horological movement including at least energy storage and distribution means device and a gear train arranged to distribute energy (Fig 1, Fig 6) to at least one said escapement mechanism according to claim 1, and at least one mechanical oscillator including at least one inertial mass returned by elastic return device, said inertial mass being arranged to cooperate with said at least one lever (Fig 1 and described in col. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Perry discloses said oscillator is a balance-spring oscillator (col. 4 line 11).
Regarding claim 14, Perry discloses a timepiece comprising a horological movement according to claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Perry discloses the timepiece is a watch.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Fujieda, US 2012/0120774.
Perry does not explicitly disclose pallets are directly mounted on a body included in said lever made of a material other than that of said lever.
Fujieda discloses a similar lever escapement using pallet jewels mounted on a body included in said lever (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perry to include a separate pallet material mounted on the lever for increased tribological characteristics afforded by pallet jewels.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Daniels, EP 0018796.
Regarding claim 10, Perry does not explicitly disclose a coaxial escapement.
Daniels discloses a self-starting coaxial escapement (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perry to be a coaxial escapement because the predictable substitution of one known escapement for another would have been well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Genequand, CH 716525.
Regarding claim 13, Perry does not explicitly disclose a flexible blade oscillator.
Genequand discloses a mechanical oscillator flexibly guided with at least one inertial mass suspended by thin elastic blades constituting said elastic return device [0003].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perry to use a flexible blade oscillator because the predictable substitution of one known oscillator for another would have been well within the grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
The prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention further including the contact between a said lever pallet and one said tooth of said escapement wheel includes at least three zones, a first zone where the torque is of negative direction, where a first angle ω1 formed between a first normal to the contact and a first radial of the lever is negative, a second zone corresponding to the first half angle of lift where the torque is of positive direction, where a second angle ω2 formed between a second normal to the contact and a second radial of the lever is positive, and a third zone corresponding to the second half angle of lift where the torque is of positive direction, where a third angle ω3 formed between a third normal to the contact and a third radial of the lever is positive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3994. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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.
/JASON M COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833