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 .
Drawing Objections
Page 6 of the specification discloses that the diameter of the peripheral wall 8b is less than the diameter of 10c, which allows the peripheral wall 8b to move in translation up and down. See Fig. 2, showing an “activated position,” and Fig. 3, a “deactivated position.” Claim 1 also requires that an external parts element will move in translation. However, although Fig. 1 shows the peripheral wall 8b with a lesser diameter than that of 10c such that 8b fits inside 10c, Fig. 2 shows 8b and 10c with equal diameters. How 8b is supposed to move downwards into the deactivated position when it is blocked by 10c is unclear in Fig. 2. The operation/functionality suggested by Fig. 2 appears to directly contradict the claim limitation and specification. The drawings are therefore objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the ability of the external parts element to move in translation as described in the specification and as claimed. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “8a” in Figs. 1-2 has been used to designate both an upper part of 8b and a perimeter of the crystal 10a.
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral 1 improperly combines Figs. 1-2. Figures must be clearly separated from one another (37 CFR 1.84(h)).
Reference numerals 19 and 9 are used with brackets, but references in the drawings must not be used with brackets (37 CFR 1.84(p)(1)).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because: on page 1, line 6, “herein be reference” appears to be a typographic error and should be changed to -herein by reference-.
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 and 9 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 in the last 3 lines, “an actuation device that moves in translation an external parts element.” Which structure moves in translation—the actuation device or the external parts element—is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been read as -an actuation device that causes an external parts element of the housing to move in translation in a direction of a back of said housing-.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klingenberg (US 3030763).
Regarding claim 1, Klingenberg teaches a Dewar device for mechanical and/or functional components of a watch, said device comprising: a wristlet (column 3, line 6: “watch”); a housing including a chamber wherein a case of the watch is disposed (column 3, lines 5-8: “an inner casing is held within an outer casing”)) in such a way that a glass of said case is arranged facing a glass of a set of elements of the housing (the case and casing each have a glass, as in Fig. 2) defining said chamber; at least one fastening device fastening said watch case in said chamber of the housing while maintaining it distant from said set of elements (column 3, lines 5-8: the inner casing being “held within” the outer casing implies the existence of a fastening device for holding the inner casing); and an actuation device that moves in translation an external parts element of the housing in the direction of a back of said housing. Column 2, lines 8-25, teaches that the glass of the housing/outer casing is pushed down to seal the device and vacuum. The glass therefore moves in translation towards the back of the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Klingenberg teaches the Dewar device according to claim 1, wherein said actuation device comprises the external parts element (column 2, lines 8-25: the glass/crystal) of the housing.
Regarding claim 4, Klingenberg teaches the Dewar device according to claim 1, wherein said external parts element is a glass (column 2, lines 8-25: “crystal”) of the housing.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingenberg.
Regarding claim 9, Klingenberg discloses the Dewar device according to claim 1.
Klingenberg does not explicitly show that the chamber is under or almost under vacuum.
Klingenberg teaches in another embodiment (Fig. 2) a chamber (space between 3 and 5) that is under vacuum.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the chamber of Klingenberg’s device according to claim 1 under vacuum, as taught by Fig. 2 of Klingenberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent undesired temperature differences (column 1, lines 14-17).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingenberg in view of Leone (US 3807236).
Regarding claim 3, Klingenberg discloses the Dewar device according to claim 1.
Klingenberg does not show the external parts element being a bezel of the housing.
Leone teaches (Figs. 3-4) an external parts element being a bezel (14) that moves in translation towards a back (back of 12) of the housing. See column 2, lines 42-47.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Leone’s external parts element with Klingenberg’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to securely hold the housing together while also allowing for convenient replacement/disassembly of parts (abstract of Leone).
Regarding claim 5, Klingenberg teaches the Dewar device according to claim 1, wherein said external parts element is a glass (column 2, lines 8-25: “crystal”) of the housing.
Klingenberg does not show the external parts element also including a bezel of the housing.
Leone teaches (Figs. 3-4) an external parts element being a bezel (14) that moves in translation towards a back (back of 12) of the housing. See column 2, lines 42-47.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Leone’s external parts element with Klingenberg’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to securely hold the housing together while also allowing for convenient replacement/disassembly of parts (Leone abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:30-5:30 PT.
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 on (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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights