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 sliding element that is a shape runner or cam in claims 18 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation
In claim 1, “functioning by wedging” is understood to mean by “jamming caused by the friction of rolling elements such as balls or rollers or runners, or sliding elements such as cams or shape runners,” as defined in page 6 of Applicant’s specification.
In claim 1, “unidirectional coupling functioning by obstacle” is understood to mean by “a mechanism employing cams or pawl-levers…or with alternately engaged toothed wheels…or using engagement mobiles,” as defined in page 6 of Applicant’s specification.
In claim 1, “freewheel functioning by obstacle” is understood to mean “by elements constituting obstacles to one another,” as defined in page 6 of Applicant’s specification.
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 7-13, 16-17 and 20 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 7 recites the limitation "the same given direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has been read as -a same given direction-.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “whatever the direction” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It has been read as -whatever a direction-.
Claim 8/1 recites “an automatic winding chain or automatic winding module” in line 1. The limitation “an automatic winding chain” has ambiguous antecedent basis because claim 1 already recites an automatic winding chain. The limitation “automatic winding module” lacks antecedent basis because it was not previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the limitations have been read as -An automatic winding module-.
Claim 11/1 has ambiguous antecedent basis for “a transmission mechanism” because claim 1 already recites such a mechanism. The limitation has been read as -the transmission mechanism-.
Claim 13/11 has ambiguous antecedent basis for “an automatic winding chain” because claim 1 already recites such an automatic winding chain. The limitation has been read as -the automatic winding chain-.
Claims 16-17 recite that “an input of the first freewheel is less than” 6 and 5, respectively. These limitations are incomplete because they do not recite a unit, and are therefore indefinite. Applicant appears to mean to have said, -the first reduction ratio is less than 6- for claim 16 and -the first reduction ratio is less than 5- for claim 17.
The term “shape runner” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shape runner” 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 a “shape runner” is is not known, so one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to know if one is blocking/wedging using a shape runner. For the purposes of examination, a shape runner is understood to mean a runner with a shape. All objects have a shape, so a shape runner is just a runner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (US 20160259299) in view of Bertrand (US 20170123376).
Regarding claim 1, Kahn discloses (Fig. 3) a transmission mechanism for an automatic winding chain for a timepiece including a series assembly of: a first freewheel (34) functioning by wedging, a reverser (320, 325) including at least one unidirectional coupling functioning by obstacle (330, 335) or at least one second freewheel functioning by obstacle, and a winding mobile mass (205).
Kahn does not show the first freewheel functioning by wedging.
Bertrand teaches a freewheel functioning by wedging ([0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bertrand’s wedging elements with Kahn’s freewheel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to achieve the predictable result of creating a simple and robust automatic winding chain that avoids excessive speeds and accelerations ([0007] of Bertrand).
Regarding claim 2, Kahn discloses (Fig. 3) the transmission mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the reverser (320, 325) and the first freewheel (340) are mechanically connected directly to one another.
Regarding claim 4, Kahn discloses (Fig. 3) the transmission mechanism according to claim 1, wherein at least one second freewheel (325) is a freewheel with at least one pawl ([0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Kahn in view of Bertrand discloses the transmission mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the first freewheel includes at least one blocking element functioning by wedging ([0042] of Bertrand).
Regarding claim 7, Kahn discloses the transmission mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the reverser includes two second freewheels so that an output of the reverser turns in a same given direction whatever a direction of an input of the reverser ([0020]: “rotation of rotor gear 315 in both clockwise and counter-clockwise directions results in clockwise rotation of rotor drive gear 340”).
Regarding claim 8, Kahn discloses an automatic winding chain or automatic winding module including the transmission mechanism according to claim 1 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Kahn discloses (Fig. 3) the automatic winding chain or automatic winding module according to claim 8, wherein an input of the reverser (320) and the winding mobile mass (205) are mechanically connected directly to one another.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Kahn discloses a timepiece and timepiece movement including a transmission mechanism according to claim 1. Paragraphs [0005] and [0007] disclose that Fig. 1 is a mechanical watch comprising the transmission mechanism of Fig. 3. Mechanical watches have a timepiece movement; the transmission mechanism is part of that movement.
Regarding claim 15, Kahn discloses (Fig. 3) the transmission mechanism according to claim 2, wherein the reverser (320, 325) and the first freewheel (340) are mechanically connected directly to one another by direct meshing of an output of the reverser with an input of the first freewheel (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 18-19, Kahn in view of Bertrand discloses the transmission mechanism according to claim 6, wherein the at least one blocking element functioning by wedging includes roller elements which are balls or rollers or runners ([0042] of Bertrand).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Bertrand, and further in view of Scholz (US 3,685,279).
Regarding claim 5, Kahn in view of Bertrand discloses the transmission mechanism according to claim 1.
The combination of Kahn and Bertrand does not show the pawl being ceramic.
Scholz teaches a pawl made of ceramic (column 2, lines 27-28).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Kahn’s pawls out of ceramic, as suggested by Scholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this construction as a known and predictable material for creating pawls.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Bertrand, and further in view of Bernard (EP 2634650).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kahn in view of Bernard discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 11.
The combination of Kahn and Bernard does not show the movement including a manual winding chain and an automatic winding chain adapted to be disengaged during manual winding by manipulating an actuator member which is a stem.
Bernard teaches a manual winding chain ([0007] of Applicant’s translation: “manual winding of the movement”) and an automatic winding chain adapted to be disengaged during manual winding ([0006]) by manipulating an actuator member which is a stem ([0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bernard’s manual and automatic winding chains with Kahn’s timepiece movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that a user may have the freedom to manually wind or automatically wind their watch.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn in view of Fleury (US 20200218199).
Regarding claim 1, Kahn discloses (Fig. 3) a transmission mechanism for an automatic winding chain for a timepiece including a series assembly of: a first freewheel (34) functioning by wedging, a reverser (320, 325) including at least one unidirectional coupling functioning by obstacle (330, 335) or at least one second freewheel functioning by obstacle, and a winding mobile mass (205).
Kahn does not show the first freewheel functioning by wedging.
Fleury teaches a freewheel functioning by wedging ([0087]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Fleury’s wedging elements with Kahn’s freewheel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to achieve the predictable result of creating an automatic winding chain.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Kahn in view of Fleury discloses the transmission mechanism according to claim 6, wherein the at least one blocking element functioning by wedging includes sliding elements which are shape runners or cams ([0087 of Fleury).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claims 9 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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: regarding claims 3 and 16-17, the prior art does not show or suggest a first reduction ratio between an output of a reverser and an input of a first freewheel being less than 8, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not show or suggest a first reduction chain extending from a winding mobile mass to a first freewheel having a second reduction ratio less than 6, and/or a second reduction chain extending from the first freewheel to a ratchet of a barrel having a third reduction ratio greater than 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Damasko (US 20080304371) shows an automatic winding weight that meshes with a reverser (33-34 in Fig. 5).
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
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833