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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a watchmaker’s bench” in line 3 and “an operator” in line 7 should be corrected as --[[a]]the watchmaker’s bench,-- and --[[an]]the operator-- respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the watchmaker’s bench comprises at least one mounting rail” in line 5, and the claim also recites “in particular arranged below the work table and facing the work face or the work station” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the feature introduced by such narrower language is interpreted to be merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claims 3-5: The preambles of claims 3-5 recite “The watchmaker’s bench according to one of claims 1”. However, the phrase, “one of claims 1” makes the scope of the claims indefinite. For examination purposes, “one of claims 1” is interpreted as --[[one of claims]]claim 1--.
Claim 3:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “an instrument support” in line 6 and “an instrument” in line 6, and the claim also recites “particularly for an optical ready” and “in particular an optical reader” respectively which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the feature introduced by such narrower language is interpreted to be merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 3 recites “at least one work module” in lines 1-2. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claim 1 (which upon claim 3 depends) recites “at least one work module” in line 7. It is not clear whether “at least one work module” refers to one in claim 1 or if they are distinct and separate from each other. For examination purposes, “at least one work module” in lines 1-2 is interpreted as --the at least one work module--.
Claim 2 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltman et al (4,239,195).
Regarding claim 1¸ Oltman et al (‘195) discloses a workbench (fig1), comprising:
a work table 16 (col.2 line64), arranged to receive workpieces,
a frame 44 (col.2 lines65-67), supporting the work table 16 (col.2 lines64-67), defining at least one work face or one work station (fig1) on the work table 16 for an operator,
characterized in that the workbench comprises at least one mounting rail 46 (col.3 lines40-43, fig1) in particular (see aforementioned interpretation under 112 U.S.C. 112(b)) arranged below the work table 16 (fig1, extending downwardly) and facing the work face or the work station (fig1), and arranged to receive at least one work module 34 (col.3 lines44-45, 48-51, fig1) to be coupled to the workbench in a position that is adjustable along said at least one mounting rail 46 (col.3 lines48-51, “vise 34 includes a movable block or jaw 50 cooperative with the fixed edge rail 46”).
However, Oltman et al does not explicitly disclose that the workbench is a watchmaker’s bench and the work table is to receive timepieces. However, “timepieces” are recited as an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the workbench of Oltman et al discloses each and every positively recited structural limitations, therefore, the workbench of Oltman et al is capable of being used as a watchmaker’s bench. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the workbench of Oltman et al as a watchmaker’s bench to provide more versatility of the workbench.
Regarding claim 3¸ Oltman et al teaches the watchmaker’s bench according to claim 1, comprising the at least one work module 34 to be coupled to said at least one mounting rail 46, forming: a tool holder 34 (a vise), arranged to support work tools (a vise can be used to support/hold work tools).
Regarding claim 4¸ Oltman et al teaches the watchmaker’s bench according to claim 1, wherein said at least one working module 34 to be coupled to said at least one mounting rail 46 comprises a coupling portion 50 (col.3 lines49-50) on said at least one mounting rail 46 comprising: a runner or a carriage 50 (col.3 lines49-51), removable and lockable on said at least one mounting rail 46 (col.3 lines44-45,48-51).
Regarding claim 5, Oltman et al teaches the watchmaker’s bench according to claim 1, wherein said at least one mounting rail 46 is recessed (via a groove 48, col.3 lines42-43, fig1) with respect to a peripheral edge of the work table 16 (fig1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oltman et al (4,239,195) in view of Nogueira (US 6,454,224 B1) and Boucher et al (US 2001/0039680 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Oltman et al teaches the watchmaker’s bench according to claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a use of a forearm support.
Nogueira (‘224) teaches a use of a forearm support 26 (fig2, col.3 line5) for a workbench 20 (col.3 lines5-6), wherein the forearm support 26 comprises a coupling portion 40 (fig2, col.3 line18-20), arranged to be coupled to at least one mounting rail 36 (col.3 lines18-20) of the workbench 20 (fig2), a first arm 48 (col.3 line23) linked to the coupling portion 40 (fig2), a second arm 56 (col.3 line27) linked to the first arm 48 (fig2), a forearm support pad 66 (col.3 line36), linked to the second arm 56 and arranged to support a forearm of the operator (fig2), characterized in that the forearm support 26 comprises an articulation system (fig2) comprising at least a first joint 44 (col.3 lines21-22) arranged between the coupling portion 40 and the first arm 48 and linking the coupling portion 40 and the first arm 48 (fig2), a second joint 50 (col.3 lines26-27) arranged between the first arm 48 and the second arm 56 and linking the first arm 48 and the second arm 56 and forming at least one work module (figs1-2) to be coupled to the at least one mounting rail 36 of the workbench 20 in a position that is adjustable along said at least one mounting rail 36 (col.3 lines18-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oltman et al to use a forearm rest, as taught by Nogueira, for the purpose of supporting a user’s forearm while still allowing substantially full mobility of the user’s arms and hands to enable the user to comfortably and effectively work (abstract). However, Nogueria does not explicitly teach that the first and second joints are ball joints. It is noted that Nogueria teaches that the first and second joints 44,50 are swivel joints (col.3 lines21,26) which swivel about multiple axes (abstract).
Boucher et al (‘680) teaches a use of a ball joint as a swivel joint (para[0019],[0030]) to allow simultaneous movement or rotation of one part relative to the other about a plurality of axes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nogueria to use a ball joint as a swivel joint, as taught by Boucher et al, for the purpose of allowing simultaneous movement or rotation of one part relative to the other about a plurality of axes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwon et al (US 12,245,688 B2), Schwarting (1,516,795), Attouche (US 2017/0013958 A1), Young et al (US 2022/0324039 A1), Alden (2,860,404), Nash et al (4,265,283), Bergsten et al (5,281,001), Hobson (5,302,014), McAllister (5,431,206), Valenzuela (6,148,881), and Mayben (US 7,823,520 B2) teach similar workbenches.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights