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 .
Election
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 7-19) without traverse is acknowledged.
Drawing Objection
Figures 1-5 (and maybe Figure 7) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated.1 See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
112(a) Rejection
Claim 14 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As to claim 14, there is no explanation as to how the shape and roughness corresponds to the unidentified/undescribed/unprovided “DIN 4760:1982-06”. There are no examples, no reference provides for such, no manner of experimenting is suggested. What “DIN 4760:1982-06” exactly provides is undefined, not provided in the disclosure. Nothing defines such.
112(b) Rejection
Claims 7-19 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.
As to claim 7, “the measuring section” is neither structurally nor functionally defined. Specification employs terms/phrases such as measuring section “relates”/“corresponding” with “angular displacement B”, but the manner of geometric relationship never clearly defines what the measuring section actually is/includes (i.e. what defines the section). Speculation only leads to indefiniteness. What is Applicant’s position?
As to claim 7, “the measuring section” is neither structurally nor functionally defined. Specification employs terms such as “relates” and “corresponding” with “angular displacement B”, but exactly what the “angular displacement B” relates/corresponds to is never clearly defined. What can possibly define the “measuring section”? Is it all within Beta of Figure 4? (Such is not likely, as Figure 3 shows only so much) Is it some portion within the Beta angle of Figure 4? Is it a portion of the spiral spring? Does it even have any mean at all, as the claimed apparatus is merely a spiral spring, and the measuring section is merely a target that is not structurally identifiable in the spiral spring (that is, is merely an intended target that might have substantive meaning in a method)? There is no definition. Guesses are problematic. Speculation only leads to indefiniteness. What is Applicant’s position?
As to claim 10, the last 3 lines are confusing. There is an “or” (last line), but what exactly are each of the two alternatives? Use of the term - - either - - is invaluable in providing clear alternatives.
As to claim 10, “along the measuring section” is unclear, as such is undefined.
As to claim 14, how does reference to DIN physically define the spring? Nothing in the claim (or specification) relates any subject matter of such with either waviness or 2nd order shape deviation, or maybe even both. How does this DIN further narrow the spiral spring, if at all?
35 USC 102(a1) /103 Rejections
Claim(s) 7,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeanneret et al CH 716974.
As to claims 7,11. Jean teaches (Figure 4) a spiral spring with several turns which extend along respective circular paths forming a spiral, wherein the spiral spring can be stimulated to an oscillatory movement, with adjacent turns being deflected relative to each other along their respective circular paths by an angular displacement (β), characterized in that the spacing (x) between the adjacent turns varies at least along a measuring section corresponding to the angular displacement.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim is directed to a spring, and can be stimulated as claimed. One of ordinary skill recognizes that any spring distance or angle of a spring is capable of being measured, and thus has a measuring section, or in the alternative, the spring is part of a watch, and thus every/any portion may be so recognized. Again, this claim is directed to a spring; it is not a method to measure a spring (as is method claim 1).
35 USC 102(a1) Rejections
Claim(s) 7,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,8,10,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Hessler et al CH 707058.
As to claims 7,11 Hes teaches (Figure 4) a spiral spring with several turns which extend along respective circular paths forming a spiral, wherein the spiral spring can be stimulated to an oscillatory movement, with adjacent turns being deflected relative to each other along their respective circular paths by an angular displacement (β), characterized in that the spacing (x) between the adjacent turns varies at least along a measuring section corresponding to the angular displacement.
The claim is directed to a spring, and can be stimulated as claimed. Either any distance or angle of a spring is capable of being measured, and thus has a measuring section, or in the alternative, the spring is part of a watch. Again, this claim is directed to a spring; it is not a method to measure a spring (as is method claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
208
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, there is a surface roughness entirely around the turns per Figure 3.
“In an advantageous variant, the at least one spiral spring 4 comprises, on its upper 41 and lower 42 faces defining two parallel planes P1, P2, a surface roughness Rt between 10 nanometers and 20 microns, and preferably close to a micrometer or slightly above this value. This slight roughness giving a frosted appearance to the hairspring 4 can be obtained during the manufacture of a quartz hairspring 4, for example, the process control parameters making it possible to obtain a more or less smooth surface state. The presence, at certain angles, of an overhang along the transverse faces 46, 47, may confer a similar effect. The spiral 4 can also be reworked so as to include micro-cells giving it locally the desired roughness.
As to claim 13, see claim 12’s dimensions of roughness in the paragraph immediately above.
As to claim 14, DIN relates to classification of deviations of a surface. A 10-20 nm range has a second order shape for a short distance.
As to claim 15, the layer 40 of roughness is around the perimeter in Figure 3.
As to claim 16, the roughness of 10-20 nm range will trigger/create such a deviation.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 17, there is such portion over the height in Figure 5.
PNG
media_image4.png
150
228
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, there is an opening angle due to the twist in Figure 5.
PNG
media_image5.png
170
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 19, roughness along the edges create an irregular course.
PNG
media_image6.png
164
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“In the variant shown in FIG. 3, the second phosphorescent or fluorescent material is applied in a thin layer 40 on the four lateral surfaces of the spiral spring 4.
In an advantageous variant, the at least one spiral spring 4 comprises, on its upper 41 and lower 42 faces defining two parallel planes P1, P2, a surface roughness Rt between 10 nanometers and 20 microns, and preferably close to a micrometer or slightly above this value.”
As to claim 8, the twist of Figure 5 is at one end, and thus results in a variation of spacing along height, radius and circumference.
PNG
media_image7.png
166
244
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, the twist in Figure 5 teaches such. Note where the twist of one turn causes a change spacing along the height due to the twist.
PNG
media_image8.png
392
684
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9,
PNG
media_image9.png
404
684
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Horn 3,293,585.
Horn teaches (Figure 1) a spiral spring with several turns which extend along respective circular paths forming a spiral, wherein the spiral spring can be stimulated to an oscillatory movement, with adjacent turns being deflected relative to each other along their respective circular paths by an angular displacement (β), characterized in that the spacing (x) between the adjacent turns varies at least along a measuring section corresponding to the angular displacement.
As to claim 7, the claim is directed to a flat, spiral spring, and thus can be stimulated as claimed. The distances or angle of a spring is capable of being measured, and thus has a measuring section. Again, this claim is directed to a spring; it is not a method to measure a spring (as is method claim 1).
PNG
media_image10.png
331
597
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, the spacing between turns is (visibly) constant over height direction, and varies along a horizontal direction as shown by the double arrows above
Reference Crossed off of 1449
As to the 1449, Citation 1 of Patent Number suspect. If Applicant has a copy of a 1878 patent have the number 2096420000000, he may consider submitting a copy. The electronic record lacks such.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Figure 1 is “prior art” (per Para 70 of Applicant’s Publication), with Figures 2-5 being that of Figure 1’s spring.
Prosecution Insights