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 2/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant emphasizes the bold portion of claim 1 as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. The argument is persuasive to claim 2 (previously indicated as allowable) because claim 2 recites electrical details which are more than mere grounding or vague electrical connection. Claim 1, however, does not differentiate from generic forms of electrical connection. Thus the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that ring 25 nor lock ring 30 come into electrical contact with the timepiece movement. This argument is not persuasive. If they are formed from metal they form the ground for the components. Wherein applicant recites the details of claim 2 to positively recite electrical details more than this interpretation the examiner agrees and indicated those details as allowable.
Applicant asserts that the combination of references would not render the claimed invention obvious. This argument is not persuasive. The argument is based from a misinterpretation of the rejection and thus is not persuasive. Wherein applicant positively recites structural details, such as claim 2, the examiner agrees with the argument and indicated those claims as allowable.
The examiner agrees that it would not be obvious to combine the references to arrive at the invention of claims 2 and 9. That is why the examiner indicated those claims are allowable. The examiner dissents that applicant’s claim 1 has the structural details relied upon to support the current arguments, akin to claims 2 and 9. See also claim 9 for some emphasis. It essentially lines up well with applicant’s second argument previously discussed.See MPEP 2111 regarding broadest reasonable interpretation.
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, 3-8, 10-17, & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahler (US 2019/0187619) in view of Yanagisawa (US 2014/0086027).
With regard to claim 1 Wahler discloses a smart watch comprising:
a case having a middle (2);
a horological movement (paragraph 53) housed in an internal space delimited by said middle (paragraph 53), said horological movement comprising
a common-ground device (paragraph 54 – metal, paragraphs 66, 75) formed by
a resilient ring (paragraph 75; 32 figure 1) comprising an annular body with a central axis (figure 1),
fastening tabs (including but not limited to 36 figure 1) carried by said annular body and cooperating with said middle (paragraph 84) to form
a bayonet locking system (abstract) by the rotation of the conductive resilient ring relative to the middle, about the central axis (abstract; figure 1), between an insertion position and a locked position (abstract; figures 1, 11, 12), wherein said conductive resilient ring includes
conductive lugs (36 paragraphs 54, 66, 75) configured to be in electrical contact with the electrical conductors of the horological movement when the conductive resilient ring is in the locked position in the middle (the elements are formed from metal thus they would form an electrical connection and function as a ground).
Wahler does not disclose the claimed: said horological movement comprising
a processing unit and
a communication module electrically connected to
electrical conductors comprised in the horological movement, and
a conductive resilient ringand applicant further asserts Wahler does not disclose conductive lugs that come into electrical contact with the electrical conductors of the horological movement
Wahler may disclose all the part made out of metal and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand the part is made out of metal. However, Wahler does not expressly state the ring is made of conductive metal, thus the limitation is treated herein as being not taught.
Yanagisawa teaches a horological movement (title, abstract, figures) comprising
a processing unit (62 figure 5) and
a communication module (32, 40) electrically connected to
electrical conductors comprised in the horological movement (see arrows figure 5);
and, a conductive resilient ring.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Wahler’s system to comprise: a processing unit and a communication module electrically connected to electrical conductors comprised in the horological movement, as taught by Yanagisawa. The reason for doing so would have been to configure Wahler’s system to process information, communicate information, and allow for electrical communication between the communication module and the processing module within the movement of the timepiece to facilitate modern processing of information both internally and in coordination with external systems, as taught by Yanagisawa, and conductive lugs that come into electrical contact with the electrical conductors of the horological movement, as taught in party by Wahler and Yanagisawa. Another reason for doing so would have been to facilitate external reception of information for a timepiece such as the current time due to an external time standard as taught by Yanagisawa.
Wahler discloses the case made of metal, the bezel made of metal, and the ring 25 made of metal – paragraphs 54, 66, 75. A reason for providing conductive lugs that come into electrical contact with the electrical conductors of the horological movement would have been to form stops that limit the movement of the structure as taught by Wahler using a material that allows the free movement of electrons therein to provide proper material properties to reduce the influence and effect of environmental concerns, as well as to coincidentally use materials which are robust and strong which coincidentally also are conductive as these features often overlap due to factors beyond mere conductive considerations.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Wahler’s system to comprise the conductive resilient ring is made of a conductive metal or polymer material. The reason for doing so would have been to make the ring out of a strong, robust, and desirable material for form the element in question, as taught by Wahler. A reason for doing so would have been to make a ring out of a well known and resilient material having excellent long term wear and strength characteristics as known by those having ordinary skill in the art.
*Unless stated otherwise reference numerals and citations pertain to base reference Wahler.
With regard to claim 3 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein the conductive lugs are conductive resilient lugs (36; paragraphs 54, 66, 75; see also 35).
With regard to claim 4 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 3, wherein the conductive lugs are configured to exert an axial force parallel to the central axis on the horological movement by elastic deformation of the conductive lugs at least when said resilient casing ring is in the locked position in the middle (36 figure 1; paragraphs 84-85; entirety of figure 1 for the relative depiction of parts).
With regard to claim 5 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 4, wherein said conductive lugs are configured so that the axial force exerted on the horological movement ensures that said horological movement is held in said middle (36 figure 1; paragraphs 84-85; entirety of figure 1 for the relative depiction of parts).
With regard to claim 6 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 3, wherein said conductive lugs are configured to attenuate movements of the horological movement in the event of impacts to the smart watch (paragraphs 84-85; figure 1; the system would inherently process impact forces in the event of an impact).
With regard to claim 7 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein the fastening tabs extend radially relative to the central axis (36 figure 1).
With regard to claim 8 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein each of said conductive lugs comprises a resilient portion connected to the annular body and shaped to deform elastically (36 figure 1; paragraphs 84-85; entirety of figure 1 for the relative depiction of parts).
With regard to claim 10 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein the conductive resilient ring comprises an angular locking member cooperating with a resilient locking finger (see 36, 28, 29, 42 figure 1) carried by the horological movement or by the middle, to ensure that said conductive resilient ring is locked against rotation once in the locked position by resilient clipping (figure 1; paragraphs 84-89; bayonet system).
With regard to claim 11 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 10, wherein the angular locking member cooperates with an abutment surface of the horological movement or of the middle (see middle figure 1 and associated abutment surfaces) to form an angular positioning stop for the conductive resilient ring (figure 1; paragraphs 84-89; bayonet system; abstract).
With regard to claim 12 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein the middle has a bearing surface for receiving said fastening tabs of the conductive resilient ring such that they bear thereagainst (36 figure 1; paragraphs 84-85; entirety of figure 1 for the relative depiction of parts).
With regard to claim 13 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein the middle comprises bayonet grooves, said bayonet grooves cooperating with said fastening tabs to form the bayonet locking system (36 figure 1; paragraphs 84-85; entirety of figure 1 for the relative depiction of parts; paragraphs 87-89).
With regard to claim 14 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein said conductive resilient ring comprises a positioning coded element for assembling (1 figure 1 has clearly depicted indicia; the resilient ring has less clearly demarked portions that equally allow the user to understand their relative positions and locking configuration. Paragraphs 84-89).
With regard to claim 15 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein said conductive resilient ring comprises at least one recess adapted to cooperate with an assembly tool (the ring has a plurality of recesses any which could cooperate with a tool. – figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
185
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See 51, 36, 41, 39
With regard to claim 16 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach the smart watch according to claim 1, wherein said conductive resilient ring comprises a first recess (36) configured to ensure rotation of the conductive resilient ring (paragraph 84; the ring 26 then mounts in the middle to facilitate rotation.) and a second recess (41) configured to ensure unlocking of said conductive resilient ring (paragraph 94), each of the recesses being adapted to cooperate with an assembly tool (figure 1).
With regard to claim 17 (depends from claim 1) Wahler does not disclose the claimed: wherein the conductive resilient ring is made of a metal or polymer material with a conductive filler.
Wahler discloses the case made of metal, the bezel made of metal, and the ring 25 made of metal – paragraphs 54, 66, 75.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Wahler’s system to comprise the conductive resilient ring is made of a metal or polymer material with a conductive filler. The reason for doing so would have been to make the ring out of a strong, robust, and desirable material for form the element in question, as taught by Wahler. A reason for doing so would have been to make a ring out of a well known and resilient material having excellent long term wear and strength characteristics as known by those having ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 21 Wahler and Yanagisawa teach a method for connecting an electronic or electromechanical horological movement of a smart watch to a common ground according to claim 1, comprising:
a step of inserting said horological movement into the middle of the case (paragraph 53 the movement does not naturally occur in nature and must be inserted);
a step of inserting the common-ground device, formed by said conductive resilient ring, over the horological movement (paragraph 54 – metal, paragraphs 66, 75); and –
a step of connecting the electrical conductors of the horological movement to a common ground (figure 1 the elements are made of metal), during which step the conductive resilient ring is rotatably engaged about the central axis until it reaches a locked position (figure 1; bayonet system paragraphs 84-89), the rotation engaging said fastening tabs in a plurality of bayonet grooves in the middle, said conductive lugs coming into electrical contact with the electrical conductors of the horological movement when the conductive resilient ring is in the locked position (figure 1 shows the elements in separate format. Once assembled they are in contact and connected).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 9 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.
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