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 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 overcomes the 112b rejection because of the amendment two resonators are arrange perpendicular to each other. This argument is not persuasive. Newton’s third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton’s first law states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue moving at a constant velocity in a straight line, unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force. Combined with the concept of conservation of rotational momentum it is plain to see that no system can reduce the forces to zero unless the system does not impart any force or otherwise is disconnected from the structure. While applicant’s system may average the forces out of time, they do not achieve reduction to zero. The amendment does nothing to address the 112b rejection of record. It is proper and therefore has been maintained. Applicant asserts the claimed structure helps compensate for a shock. This argument is not persuasive. The benefits of shock reduction are not the matter at issue. The claim is directed toward an improbable result requiring the reader to speculate about the scope to attribute thereto. This is impermissible under 35 USC 112b. In regard to the rejection over Blume applicant asserts that the rejections interpretation of the claim language reduced to zero is improper. This argument is not persuasive. As clearly stated in the 112b rejection, the claims require a speculative interpretation. The rejection is proper and thus has been maintained. In regard to the rejection over Blume applicant asserts that the structure reduces the forces to zero. This argument is not persuasive. This is an indefinite claim. See Newton’s laws. If the structures impart any force, then that force is non-zero. The structure does not achieve the result asserted based on fundamental and ordinary assumptions of structures and physics. Applicant provides no basis why applicant’s invention achieves zero force and the prior art that is arranged according to all the same structural requirements does not. If the prior art has all the same structural limitations that the claim requires, and applicant still states the prior art does not anticipate the claim, then clearly it can be seen why the claims are indefinite under 35 USC 112b. It is entirely unclear what evidence requirement applicant expects to anticipate the claim.
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 1 and 3-19 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 1 recites “the two resonators are arranged perpendicular to each other and disposed relative to the moving element so that, around each centre of rotation, the torque resulting from all acceleration forces being applied in the plane of each resonator is zero”. Claim 1 also recites “piezoelectric actuator comprising a moving element whose movement causes the rotor to rotate in a first direction”. The combination of these limitations if taken literally are simply impossible, requiring the reading to speculatively attribute scope thereto that is non-literal. I.e. how close to zero is permissible, because true zero isn’t plausible. Newton’s third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Torque is induced on the rotary element thus torque is induced in an opposite way in the driving elements. While localized torques could be addressed applicant has not set forth any disclosure capable of explaining what they mean by this term or how it is achieved. Thus one having ordinary skill in the art can only take the phrase at face value. Because the system induces a torque by driving it cannot reasonably avoid torque around its own rotary center. Rotation about that center is the point of induced torque of the system. The piezo elements could remain stationary relative to a frame, but the frame itself would receive the torque opposite to the rotary driven element.
For these reasons claim 1 is indefinite. For the purposes of examination the examiner interprets the phrase to mean that elements are stable relative to the frame over a operational period of time.
Claims 3-19 depend from claim 1 and thus have at least the same defect(s).
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 1-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Blume (US 8004149).
With regard to claim 1 Blume discloses a rotary piezoelectric motor for a timepiece, the motor comprising:
a rotor (39 figures 7a-8) configured to rotate and actuate a mechanical device (33),
a stator (1 figure 3a) configured to rotate the rotor (39), the stator comprising a piezoelectric actuator (19a, 19b),
the piezoelectric actuator comprising a moving element (19a) whose movement causes the rotor to rotate in a first direction (figures 3a, 3b), wherein the piezoelectric actuator comprises two electrically actuatable resonators (19a, 19b), the resonators being connected to the moving element (1, 4 and associated parts figure 3a) to move the moving element (1, 4 and associated parts figure 3a) against the rotor (39) to cause the rotor to rotate (abstract), the two resonators (19a, 19b) being arranged relative to the moving element (figures 3a, b) so as to cause the moving element to oscillate in first and second directions different from each other (figures 3a, b; abstract), each resonator including a centre of rotation (figures 3a, 3b), the two resonators are arranged perpendicular to each other and disposed relative to the moving element so that, around each centre of rotation, the torque resulting from all acceleration forces being applied in the plane of each resonator is zero (over time the actuators 19a, 19b do not move and thus are subject to an average torque of zero).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further there are two parallel supports to allow movement relative to shocks. As stated by applicant in the arguments 4/6/26 this achieves the claimed result.
With regard to claim 3 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein the first and second resonators are each arranged on a different side of the moving element (figure 3b, 19a and 19b are arranged on perpendicular sides the same as applicant’s).
With regard to claim 4 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, comprising a first translation table enabling the moving element to move in the first direction (abstract; figures 3a, 3b; 19a and 19b are connected to different table elements to the main ring/stator).
With regard to claim 5 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 4, comprising a second translation table enabling the moving element to move in the second direction (abstract; figures 3a, 3b; 19a and 19b are connected to different table elements to the main ring/stator).
With regard to claim 6 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 5, wherein the second translation table is arranged in series with the first translation table, the moving element being connected to the second translation table.
Figure 3a: tables in series shown in the figure with arrows:
PNG
media_image2.png
442
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 5, wherein the first translation table and the second translation table are substantially perpendicular to each other (figure 3a).
With regard to claim 8 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein a translation table is arranged on the other side of the moving element with respect to a resonator (figure 3a).
With regard to claim 9 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein each resonator is provided with an oscillating mass actuated by a pair of flexible blades including a piezoelectric material (19a, 19b figure 3a).
With regard to claim 10 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein the moving element performs an orbital movement in a second direction opposite to the first direction (figures 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 11 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein the moving element is always in contact with the rotor during operation of the rotary motor (column 5 lines 35-40 – “continuous”. The prior art is AS reasonably enabled for this feature as applicant’s own invention).
With regard to claim 12 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 10, wherein the movement of the moving element causes the rotor to rotate continuously (column 5 lines 35-40 – “continuous”).
With regard to claim 13 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein the moving element is ring-shaped, the rotor being arranged inside the ring (“drive ring” 1 figure 3a).
With regard to claim 14 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 13, wherein the contact between the moving element and the moving rotor is inside the ring (figures 3a, 8; abstract).
With regard to claim 16 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according to claim 1, wherein the moving element is fixed in rotation (1 figure 3a).
With regard to claim 17 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according claim 1, wherein the first and second resonators are actuated with a 90 degree phase shift (figures 3a, 3b. The rotation occurs at 9 major points at 90 degrees from each other thus the phase is shifted 90 degrees.)
With regard to claim 19 Blume discloses the piezoelectric motor according claim 1, wherein each resonator comprises a pair of parallel (5 figure 1a), flexible blades that are connected at one end to a rigid part, and the rigid part is connected to the moving element (figure 1a).
PNG
media_image3.png
482
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume (US 8004149) in view of Stranczl (US 20150063082) and Laesser (US 9164483), Vardi (US 9134705), Takenawa (US 2015/0071042), and Mentesana (US 7119478).
With regard to claim 15 (depends from claim 13) Blume does not disclose the claimed: wherein the rotor comprises a toothed wheel, the ring including an internal toothing cooperating with an external toothing of the toothed wheel.
It is very well known in the art of horology to provide a piezoelectric element to drive a toothed gear/wheel as evidenced by Vardi, Takenawa, and Mentesana.
Stranczl teaches an internal tooth for driving an internal toothed wheel wherein the control thereof is effected by oscillation in rectangular box format – abstract, figure 1.
Laesser similarly teaches an inner wheel outer wheel driving control configuration – abstract, figure 1.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Blume’s system to comprise a rotor comprises a toothed wheel, the ring including an internal toothing cooperating with an external toothing of the toothed wheel, as taught by Stranczl, Laesser, Vardi, Takenawa, and Mentesana. The reason for doing so would have been to control the driving of a horological system including toothed gears using known oscillation technology commonly employed in the field of horology to achieve an operational time driving and measurement system, as taught by Stranczl, Laesser, Vardi, Takenawa, and Mentesana.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blume (US 8004149) in view of Takenawa (US 2015/0071042).
With regard to claim 18 (depends from claim 1) Blume does not disclose the claimed: a timepiece including a horological movement comprising a gear transmission configured to rotate at least one hand, wherein the timepiece comprises a piezoelectric motor, the piezoelectric motor being arranged to actuate the gear transmission.
Takenawa teaches a timepiece comprising driving display hands using a piezoelectric motor and a gear train (title, abstract, 502 figure 7; paragraphs 28, 89).
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Blume’s system to comprise: a timepiece including a horological movement comprising a gear transmission configured to rotate at least one hand, wherein the timepiece comprises a piezoelectric motor, the piezoelectric motor being arranged to actuate the gear transmission, as taught by Takenawa. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a motive force to a timekeeping system to arrive at a complete indication of time, as taught by Takenawa, while gaining the advantages in driving design as set forth by Blume.
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, 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.
/SEAN KAYES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights