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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-8 have been amended, claims 9 and 10 have been added as new.
Thus, claims 1-10 are pending.
Applicant’s remarks, see “Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112(f)” (pg. 8), filed 17 May 2026, with respect to the interpretations of claim elements are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Rejection Under 35 USC § 103” (pg. 9) and associated amendments, filed 17 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the noted claims has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Rejection Under 35 USC § 103” (pg. 9) and associated amendments, filed 17 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 112 and 103.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites "the first set value” and “the second set value" in ln. 25 (pg. 5, ln. 20). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8 (as best understood) and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Shimizu and Tombez.
Regarding claim 8, Koike teaches “An electrically controlled mechanical watch comprising: a mainspring (1a); a wheel train configured to transmit mechanical energy of the mainspring (7); a hand driven by the wheel train to display the time (14); a speed regulator configured to control a rotation cycle of the wheel train (50); a control circuit configured to control the speed regulator (56); a power generator configured to convert the mechanical energy of the mainspring to electrical energy (20); a first power accumulation device configured to accumulate the electrical energy of the power generator and supply the electrical energy to the control circuit (22); ... when a winding-up amount of the mainspring exceeds a predetermined value (col 11, ln 32-33, "When the detected voltage VSSV' exceeds a preset value Vref"), the switch is switched from an off state to an on state , (col 11, ln. 33-35, "the comparator outputs a signal ... which turns on the bypass circuit switch") ... when the winding-up amount of the mainspring falls below the predetermined value (col 11, ln. 35-36, "When the detected voltage VSSV' is not greater than the preset value Vref"), the switch is switched from the on state to the off state, ... and the first set value is greater than the second set value (setting high/low threshold values for triggering a switch operation is routine and ordinary in the art of horology). Though Koike refers to only a single preset value (Vref), modifying the switching logic to include a second set point by adding another comparator circuit with a different setpoint to the circuitry of Koike would obtain the predictable result of using the generator output within a pre-set operating range (determined by the mainspring winding amount) to control the transfer of excess generated electrical energy to a secondary storage device. As Koike discloses the claimed invention except for a comparator with two setpoints, it would have been an obvious duplication of parts to add a second comparator with a different setpoint to achieve the effect, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
Koike fails to teach that the coupling via the switch occurs based upon “... a winding-up amount of the mainspring ...”, “a second power accumulation device”, or that the switch is “configured to switch a coupling state between the first power accumulation device and the second power accumulation device”.
Shimizu teaches detection of “a winding-up amount of the mainspring (130)” and performing switching operations based upon that winding up amount. Thus the winding up detection of Shimizu can be applied to the switching logic of Koike to control switching.
Tombez teaches “a second power accumulation device (CACC) coupled to the first power accumulation device in parallel and configured to accumulate the electrical energy”. Tombez also teaches “a switch arranged between the first power accumulation device and the second power accumulation device and configured to switch a coupling state between the first power accumulation device and the second power accumulation device (60b)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the electronically controlled mechanical timepiece Koike with the switching control and detection the level of mainspring winding via voltage detection of Shimizu, and the secondary accumulator and switching load pump of Tombez, according to known methods, to create an electronically controlled mechanical timepiece having a rotating wheel generator wherein exists a timepiece movement regulator which transfers excess electrical energy from the electromechanical movement to a separate electrical accumulator with the expected benefit of creating a spring driven electromechanical timepiece with the capability of powering auxiliary electrical/electronic functions (lighting, short range communication circuits, display lighting, etc.) of the timepiece.
Regarding claim 9, Koike teaches “An electrically controlled mechanical watch comprising: a mainspring (1a); a wheel train configured to transmit mechanical energy of the mainspring (7); a hand driven by the wheel train to display the time (14); a speed regulator configured to control a rotation cycle of the wheel train (50); a control circuit configured to control the speed regulator (56); a power generator configured to convert the mechanical energy of the mainspring to electrical energy (20); a first power accumulation device (22) configured to accumulate the electrical energy of the power generator and supply the electrical energy to the control circuit (32); ... wherein in a case in which the switch is in an off state, when the detection circuit detects that the mechanical energy amount exceeds a first set value (col.11, ln. 33, "a preset value Vref"), the control circuit controls the switch from the off state to an on state (col. 11, ln. 33-35, "the comparator 35 outputs a signal ... which turns on the bypass circuit switch 33.”), in a case in which the switch is in the on state, when the detection circuit detects that the mechanical energy amount falls below a second set value (col. 11, ln 35-36, “When the detected voltage VSSV' is not 35 greater than the preset value Vref”), the control circuit controls the switch from the on state to the off state (col. 11, ln. 36-38, "the comparator 35 outputs a signal ... which turns off the bypass circuit switch 33.")...”, and the first set value is greater than the second set value (setting high/low threshold values for triggering a switch operation is routine and ordinary in the art of horology).” Though Koike refers to only a single preset value (Vref), modifying the switching logic to include a second set point by adding another comparator circuit with a different setpoint to the circuitry of Koike would obtain the predictable result of using the generator output within a pre-set operating range (determined by the mainspring winding amount) to control the transfer of excess generated electrical energy to a secondary storage device. As Koike discloses the claimed invention except for a comparator with two setpoints, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second comparator with a different setpoint to achieve the effect, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))
However Koike fails to teach “a detection circuit configured to detect a mechanical energy amount accumulated in the mainspring” or “a second power accumulation device coupled to the first power accumulation device in parallel via a switch and configured to accumulate the electrical energy”.
Shimizu teaches “a detection circuit configured to detect a mechanical energy amount accumulated in the mainspring (130)”
Shimizu fails to teach “a second power accumulation device coupled to the first power accumulation device in parallel via a switch and configured to accumulate the electrical energy”.
Tombez teaches “... a second power accumulation device (CACC) coupled to the first power accumulation device in parallel via a switch (60b) and configured to accumulate the electrical energy ...”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the timepiece of Koike with the detection circuit of Shimizu and secondary power accumulator of Tombez according to known methods to create a timepiece wherein excess electrical energy from the electromechanical generator is transferred to a secondary power storage device with the expected benefit of creating a spring driven electromechanical timepiece with the capability of powering auxiliary electrical/electronic functions (lighting, short range communication circuits, display lighting, etc.) of the timepiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 10 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor makes obvious an electrically controlled mechanical watch comprising a power generator driven by a mainspring further comprises two electrical accumulators connected in parallel via a switch controlled by a control circuit with predetermined set values wherein a detection circuit determines the mechanical energy amount stored in the mainspring and controls the accumulator circuitry based on the amount of mechanical energy stored in the mainspring via said switch.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Koike, Shimizu and Tombez as applied in the previous office action. However, the combined teachings of Koike, Shimizu, and Tombez, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor makes obvious “a rotation detection circuit configured to detect a rotation speed of a rotor of the power generator to determine a mechanical energy amount accumulated in the mainspring”.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art is Koike, Shimizu and Tombez wherein Koike teaches the timepiece with a spring driven rotary generator, Shimizu teaches the detection circuit for determining the mechanical energy amount of the spring, and Tombez teaches the secondary power accumulator connected via a switch. However, the combined teachings of Koike, Shimizu, and Tombez, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor makes obvious “in a case in which the voltage detection circuit detects that the voltage of the second power accumulation device is equal to or lower than a predetermined value, even when it is detected that the mechanical energy amount exceeds the first set value, the control circuit maintains the switch in the off state.”
No prior art was found which teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the distinguishing features discussed above.
Therefore, the examiner finds independent claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2-7 allowable over the prior art based upon the rationale presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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.
/MICHAEL JAMES WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights