Detailed Action begins on Page 3
Table of Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 3
Claim 16 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 5
Claims 1-20 5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 6
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, and 15 7
Claims 1 and 5-6 9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 11
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 17-20 11
Citation of Relevant Art 15
Conclusion 16
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites the limitations “wherein the at least one portion of lower strength of the at least one articulation pin is a groove with a rounded surface having a width in a median longitudinal plane in a range of from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm and a depth of less than or equal to 0.6 times the width.” The specification recites that “The at least one portion of lower strength of the articulation pin may be a groove of rounded shape with no sharp edges. This groove may have a rounded surface. It may have a section on a median longitudinal plane the width of which is between 0.2 and 0.4 mm inclusive. The at least one portion of lower strength may have a depth less than or equal to 0.7 times said width, or even less than or equal to 0.6 times said width.”
Based upon the claimed limitations and the written description and the drawings, there is not a portion of lower strength which meets what is described. The specification and claims describe the portion of lower strength as being the groove formed in the pin, however this cannot be the portion of lower strength because it has no strength at all. Instead the specification and claim 16 describes the dimensions for the groove in the articulation pin, whereas the portion of lower strength must be the part of the pin shaped by groove but cannot be the groove itself. The dimensions claimed, between 0.2 and 0.4 mm inclusive and depth less than or equal to 0.7 times said width, can only be supported as dimensions of the groove. And while the written description states that this is the dimensions of the portion of lower strength, it is clear that this is instead the dimensions of the groove based on the description itself and the drawings.
Claim 16 must either recite that the dimensions claimed are for the groove in the articulation pin, which provides shape of the outer surface of the portion of lower strength but cannot actually be the portion of lower strength itself, or change the dimensions claimed to actually match what the width/depth of the portion of lower of strength can be because currently these dimensions are for the groove but the portion of lower strength is formed by the volume of the articulation pin delimited by the groove. Furthermore, the specification also conflates the portion of lower strength as being the groove itself, and it must be redefined to accurately describe the articulation pin as having a groove, the groove having dimensions such as those described and claimed, and having a portion of lower strength delimited by the groove. For now claim 16 recites limitations which are not supported and wholly inaccurate and until it is clarified whether claim 16 recites dimension limitations for a groove or for the portion of lower strength it is speculation to pick which is intended and this issue must be resolved before claim 16 is examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20
Claim 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it recite the limitation “the at least one articulation pin includes at least one portion of lower strength” and there is no context included in the claim for what this portion of lower strength is being compared with in order to have a lower strength. Without this context the limitation more than just broadly claims subject matter relating to strength but leaves the meaning of the limitation uncertain. The comparison could be to other parts the articulation device, the timepiece components, the typical strength of an articulation pin for a timepiece, or any arbitrary comparison a person reading the claim could make. For purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as recuing “at least one portion of lower strength compared to another portion of the articulation device”
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and are rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 4, it recites the limitation “the at least one central articulation portion” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, it recites the limitation “wherein the functional portion includes a part having a frustoconical shape” and because this depends from claim 5 which recites “a functional portion of the at least one articulation pin that is entirely inscribed in a cylinder” the claims do not clearly define a functional portion that can be achieved by meeting both of these shape limitations and it is likely that either the parts of the device with these shapes needs to be clarified or the dependency of the claims needs to be clarified. For purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the at least one articulation pin includes a part having a frustoconical shape”.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites the limitation “a second configuration” and it is indefinite if this is the same limitation as the “a second configuration” introduced in claim 13 or if these are separate limitations. Either proper use of antecedent basis or clearly defining these as separate limitations is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, and 15
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vuille (US 10359739 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Vuille discloses an articulation device for articulation of two timepiece components, the articulation device including
at least one articulation pin (11, 12) and first (10) and second (1) timepiece components connected to one another in an articulated manner using the at least one articulation pin [col. 3 lines 43-49],
wherein the two timepiece components each include first (“passage”) [col. 3 lines 35-42] [fig. 5] and second guide surfaces (101, 102) that cooperate with first and second articulation surfaces respectively of at least one articulation portion (cylindrical bodies of 11, 12) of the at least one articulation pin [fig. 5], the guide surfaces and the respective articulation surfaces being positioned face-to-face to guide by rubbing the movement in rotation of the respective timepiece components relative to said at least one articulation pin [fig. 5] [col. 3 lines 43-49],
the at least one articulation portion of the articulation pin or the at least one articulation pin is made entirely of ceramic [col. 4 lines 13-15],
the at least one articulation pin includes at least one portion of lower strength (110, 120) positioned out of reach of the guide surfaces of the respective timepiece components [fig. 5], and
the at least one articulation portion of the articulation pin or the at least one articulation pin includes an entirely continuous peripheral surface with no sharp edges [fig. 5], or any section of the at least one articulation portion or of the articulation pin on a median longitudinal plane and any section of the at least one articulation portion or of the articulation pin on a transverse plane has a contour of continuous shape [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 2, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the articulation device includes one or more cylindrical articulation portions (cylindrical section of 11, 12) with no portion of lower strength, and/or the at least one portion of lower strength is positioned outside the articulation surfaces [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 3, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one portion of lower strength of the at least one articulation pin
is a groove having a rounded shape with no sharp edges (cylindrical groove) [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 4, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one articulation pin includes a functional portion (110, 120 are slots) extending from a first end of the articulation pin and including the at least one portion of lower strength outside any guide surface [fig. 5], juxtaposed to the at least one articulation portion forming the articulation surfaces with the first and second timepiece components [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 5, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one portion of lower strength is part of a functional portion [col. 3 lines 60-65] of the at least one articulation pin that is entirely inscribed in a cylinder [fig. 5] having a diameter less than a diameter of the at least one articulation pin at the at least one articulation portion [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 7, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first timepiece component and/or the second timepiece component includes or include a recess around the at least one portion of lower strength (recess where 30 is inserted) [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 8, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one portion of lower strength (110, 120) has a continuous peripheral surface (continuous cylinder) [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 9, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one articulation pin is a one-piece monobloc form [fig. 5] and is made entirely of ceramic [col. 4 lines 13-15] [abstract].
Regarding Claim 12, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first and second timepiece components are strap links, or the first timepiece component is a part of a strap (10) and the second component is a watch case or middle (1) [figs 2 and 5] [].
Regarding Claim 15, Vuille discloses the articulation device of claim 1, and further discloses a timepiece [abstract] [fig. 1] including at least one articulation device according to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 5-6
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicolas et al. (EP 3480665 A1, hereinafter “Nicolas”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nicolas discloses an articulation device for articulation of two timepiece components, the articulation device including
at least one articulation pin (4’ and 4’’) and first (100) and second (200) timepiece components [fig. 6] connected to one another in an articulated manner using the at least one articulation pin [0012],
wherein the two timepiece components each include first (3) [fig. 4] and second (23, 24) [fig. 6] guide surfaces that cooperate with first and second articulation surfaces (surfaces of 4’a and 4’’a) [fig. 5] respectively of at least one articulation portion (4’a and 4’’a) of the at least one articulation pin [figs. 4 and 5], the guide surfaces and the respective articulation surfaces being positioned face-to-face to guide by rubbing the movement in rotation of the respective timepiece components relative to said at least one articulation pin [0012],
the at least one articulation portion of the articulation pin or the at least one articulation pin is made entirely of ceramic [0026],
the at least one articulation pin includes at least one portion of lower strength (4’d and 4’’d) positioned out of reach of the guide surfaces of the respective timepiece components [figs. 4-5], and
the at least one articulation portion of the articulation pin or the at least one articulation pin includes an entirely continuous peripheral surface with no sharp edges [fig. 5], or any section of the at least one articulation portion or of the articulation pin on a median longitudinal plane and any section of the at least one articulation portion or of the articulation pin on a transverse plane has a contour of continuous shape.
Regarding Claim 5, Niolas discloses the articulation device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one portion of lower strength (4’d and 4’’d) is part of a functional portion of the at least one articulation pin that is entirely inscribed in a cylinder having a diameter less than a diameter of the at least one articulation pin at the at least one articulation portion [fig. 5].
Regarding Claim 6, Niolas discloses the articulation device according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the articulation pin includes a part having a frustoconical shape (4’b and 4’’b) [0021].
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.
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 17-20
Claims 10-11, 13-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuille as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rejzner (US 20090113870 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Vuille discloses the articulation device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the at least one articulation pin is based on a technical ceramic, or the at least one articulation pin is made entirely of a technical ceramic, or is made of a composite material based on a ceramic.
Rejzner discloses articulated links for connecting a watch strap [abstract] in multiple embodiments but with a common theme, namely only to allow friction between materials identified for their compatibility for rubbing against one another with a minimum of wear [0029]. For this purpose, Rejzner discloses that articulation pins are made from a sintered ceramic or a sintered ceramic-metal composite [0033, 0037, 0041] and this sintered ceramic is advantageously selected to be zirconia ceramic [0033].
The prior art included each element claimed by claim 10, with Vuille disclosing everything but the particular ceramic selected after disclosing that the articulation pins are made from a ceramic [col. 4 lines 13-15] and Rejzner disclosing articulation pins for the same function made form a sintered ceramic, particularly zirconia. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Vuille already disclosed that the articulation pins are made from a ceramic, but omitted the specific material selection details. While a person having ordinary skill in the art may then find the rest of claim 10 obvious based on Vuille alone due to ordinary knowledge of ceramic material used for pins, Rejzner nonetheless discloses the material selection step for ceramic articulation pins and provides for the application of sintered zirconia ceramic.
The articulation pins of both Vuille and Rejzner accomplish the same function and are both made from a ceramic material, therefore applying the material selection of Rejzner to the articulation pins of Vuille would produce a result entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and meet all of the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Vuille discloses the articulation device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one articulation pin has a hardness greater than or equal to 800 HV.
Rejzner discloses articulated links for connecting a watch strap [abstract] in multiple embodiments but with a common theme, namely only to allow friction between materials identified for their compatibility for rubbing against one another with a minimum of wear [0029]. For this purpose, Rejzner discloses that articulation pins are made from a sintered ceramic or a sintered ceramic-metal composite [0033, 0037, 0041] and this sintered ceramic is advantageously selected to be zirconia ceramic [0033]. This sintered ceramic selected from Zirconia meets the limitation of an articulation pin which has a hardness greater than or equal to 800 HV based on its inherent material properties.
The prior art included each element claimed by claim 11, with Vuille disclosing everything but the particular ceramic selected after disclosing that the articulation pins are made from a ceramic [col. 4 lines 13-15] and Rejzner disclosing articulation pins for the same function made form a sintered ceramic, particularly zirconia. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Vuille already disclosed that the articulation pins are made from a ceramic, but omitted the specific material selection details. While a person having ordinary skill in the art may then find the rest of claim 11 obvious based on Vuille alone due to ordinary knowledge of ceramic material used for pins, Rejzner nonetheless discloses the material selection step for ceramic articulation pins and provides for the application of sintered zirconia ceramic.
The articulation pins of both Vuille and Rejzner accomplish the same function and are both made from a ceramic material, therefore applying the material selection of Rejzner to the articulation pins of Vuille would produce a result entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and meet all of the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, Vuille and Rejzner disclose the articulation device according to claim 11, and Vuille further discloses wherein the first timepiece component (1) is a watch middle [abstract], the second timepiece component (10) is a part of a strap [figs. 1 and 5], the articulation device includes a connecting element (35) intended for connection to a respective part of a strap or a watch middle [fig. 5], and including a housing (part of 10 where it is housed) [fig. 5] in which the at least one articulation pin is arranged, and at least one attached element (30), the articulation device being designed to occupy at least two configurations:
- a first configuration in which the at least one articulation pin is free to move in translation in the housing of the connecting element so as to be able to occupy a position projecting from the connecting element and a position retracted into the housing [col. 2 lines 55-62, col. 3 lines 20-31] [fig. 5 with 30 and 35 released from recess/unscrewed]; and
- a second configuration in which the at least one attached element cooperates with the at least one articulation pin to retain it in its position projecting from the connecting element [fig. 5] [col. 2 lines 55-62, col. 3 lines 20-31].
Regarding Claim 14, Vuille and Rejzner disclose the articulation device according to claim 13, and Vuille further discloses wherein the at least one attached element (30) is removable (reversibly connected with screw 35) [fig. 5] and includes at least one first abutment (32) that cooperates with a first surface of the at least one articulation pin in a second configuration of the articulation device so as to prevent the articulation device from moving in translation in the housing and to retain the articulation device in a position projecting from the connecting element [fig. 5] [col. 3 lines 20-31], and the at least one attached element is removed from the articulation device in the first configuration (stated in rejection of claim 13 above).
Regarding Claim 17, Vuille and Rejzner disclose the articulation device according to claim 10, and Rejzner further discloses wherein the at least one articulation pin is based on a sintered technical ceramic [0033].
Regarding Claim 18, Vuille and Rejzner disclose the articulation device according to claim 17, and Rejzner further discloses wherein the sintered technical ceramic is based on zirconia [0033].
Regarding Claim 19, Vuille and Rejzner disclose the articulation device according to claim 10, and Rejzner further discloses wherein the at least one articulation pin is made entirely of a sintered technical ceramic [0033].
Regarding Claim 20, Vuille and Rejzner disclose the articulation device according to claim 10, and Rejzner further discloses wherein the at least one articulation pin is made of a composite material based on a ceramic including metal [0033].
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Catherine et al. (US 20170360163 A1) discloses an assembly screw for the pivoting attachment of at least two horology components in a position of assembly, the assembly screw comprising at least one guide portion allowing one of the horology components to pivot, and at least one threaded portion allowing it to be fixed to another horology component, wherein this screw comprises a shoulder intended to come into abutment against this other horology component and a zone of lower mechanical rigidity to reduce the contact pressure applied at the shoulder of the assembly screw.
Hiranuma et al. (US 20060261106 A1) discloses wristwatch and band, in which bow feet each of which has an attachment hole are protrusively provided in a case band, and a bow crotch receiving an end piece of a band capable of being attached to and detached from the case band so as to be capable of being put in and taken out is formed between the bow feet, and a cam body having a cam part in which an elliptic cam face has been formed is rotatably accommodated in the end piece, and an operation groove of the cam body is exposed.
Howald (US 6014793 A) discloses a device for attaching the end of a strap-like member to a watch comprising a housing with two latch pins, at least one of these pins is able to occupy two positions, a first position in which it protrudes from said housing to come to engage in one of the recesses of the object, and a second position in which it is retracted, and a rotatable or push-piece type movable control member solid with a cam engaging with the inner end of one of the pins and applied against this cam by biasing means, can be actuated to bring this pin into the retracted position against the pressure exerted by the biasing means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2844