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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “the group” in the antepenultimate line should be -a group-.
Claim 9 is in improper dependent form. However, Applicant’s remarks state that claim 9 is meant to depend on claim 8. Accordingly, “claim 1 claim 8” has been read as -claim 8-.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “putting the timepiece in beat comprising an operation” is idiomatically incorrect and is suggested to be changed to -putting the timepiece in beat through an operation-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 3-5 and 18, in accordance with Applicant’s remarks, any stiffness adjustment executed in the manner disclosed in the specification is understood to achieve the claimed stiffnesses and relative stiffnesses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 and 20 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 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the second proximal end” in line 3. See below for Examiner’s interpretation.
Claim 8 is indefinite because “the second proximal end…fasten said the second hairspring” and “said the second hairspring…fastened to the frame” appear to be two different clauses improperly joined together and is idiomatically incorrect. What the second proximal end fastens the second hairspring to is unclear. How the second proximal end relates to the outer end and inner end is unclear. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 has been read as -the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third elastic return element comprises a second hairspring including at least one second blade,
Claim 10 recites “first and second connecting means to the first and third elastic return elements.” Claim 10 is missing a verb between “means” and “to,” so what the means are doing to the return elements is unclear. For the purposes of examination, “means to” has been read as -means connected to-.
The term “proximal” in claims 8 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered proximal will vary according to different persons of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, what the ends are proximal to is not specified.
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 1-3, 7, 10, 12-13, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kahrobaiyan (US 20220171336).
Regarding claim 1, Kahrobaiyan teaches (Fig. 25) a timepiece movement comprising: a regulating system (240), and an adjustment device (6), the regulating system comprising: a frame (53, 116), an assembled balance (3) pivoted in relation to the frame about a geometric axis (central axis of sprig 2) and comprising movable screws or inertia blocks for adjusting the inertia of the assembled balance ([0009]), an elastic return system intended to link the assembled balance to the frame so that the assembled balance and the elastic return system form an oscillator (Fig. 25), the elastic return system comprising: a first elastic return element (2) in the form of a first hairspring having a first stiffness k1, a second elastic return element (51-52) having a second stiffness k2, and a third elastic return element (61, 114-115) having a third stiffness k3, wherein the first elastic return element (2) and the second elastic return (51-52) element are assembled in series between the assembled balance (3) and the frame (53), wherein the third elastic return element (114-115) and the second elastic return element (51-52) are assembled in parallel between the frame (53, 116) and the first elastic return element (2), and wherein at least one selected from a group consisting of the first, second and third stiffnesses (k2) is adjustable by modifying an effective length of at least one elastic blade (51-52) of at least one selected from a group consisting of the first, second, or third elastic return elements (51-52). Paragraph [0014] discloses that a force/torque is applied to a flexible element, which modifies the stiffness of the flexible element. Paragraph [0101] and Fig. 25 disclose that the lever 106 moves left/right to force/torque 104, thereby moving a virtual intersection of 51-52 and adjusting the lengths of 51-52.
Regarding claim 2, Kahrobaiyan teaches (Fig. 25) the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustment device (6) is a device (106) for modifying the third stiffness k3 of the third elastic return element (61). Moving the device 106 changes the length of the third elastic return element 61, which causes its stiffness to change. See also [0101].
Regarding claim 3, Kahrobaiyan teaches the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein: k2+k3>k1, and/or the second stiffness k2 is greater by at least one order of magnitude than the first stiffness k1 ([0013]-[0014]). Kahrobaiyan’s stiffness is adjusted in the same manner as Applicant’s (see claim 1 rejection), so the relative stiffness is taught (see Remarks 2026-06-23 and Claim Interpretation).
Regarding claim 7, Kahrobaiyan teaches (Fig. 25) the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first hairspring (2) comprises at least one first blade (2) linked to the assembled balance (3, Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 10, Kahrobaiyan teaches (Fig. 25) the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the timepiece movement comprises a connecting member and the connecting member comprises two plates (104, 109) for receiving first and second connecting means (where 61 connects to 109, where 51-52 connects to 104) connected to the first (51-52) and third (61) elastic return elements, respectively, the two plates being linked to the frame by the second elastic return element (Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 12, Kahrobaiyan discloses a timepiece comprising the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1 ([0011]).
Regarding claim 13, Kahrobaiyan discloses a method for adjusting a timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: modifying the third stiffness k3 of the third elastic return element. Paragraph [0101] discloses moving 106 to move third elastic return element 61, thereby changing its stiffness.
Regarding claim 15, Kahrobaiyan teaches (Fig. 25) the adjustment method as claimed in claim 13, the method comprising, before the modifying of the third stiffness k3 ([0101]): putting the timepiece in beat through an operation of moving an intermediate member (106) that is part of the frame in relation to a rest of the frame (53, 116), the intermediate member linking a connecting member (104-105) to the rest of the frame (116), the connecting member providing a link between the first hairspring (2) and the second elastic return element (51-52). Paragraph [0101] discloses that the third stiffness k3 of spring 61 is modified by moving the intermediate member 106, so this intermediate member must be moved before the third stiffness is modified.
Regarding claim 21, Kahrobaiyan teaches (Fig. 25) a timepiece movement comprising: a regulating system (240), and an adjustment device (6), the regulating system comprising: a frame (53, 116), an assembled balance (3) pivoted in relation to the frame about a geometric axis (central axis of sprig 2) and comprising movable screws or inertia blocks for adjusting the inertia of the assembled balance ([0009]), an elastic return system intended to link the assembled balance to the frame so that the assembled balance and the elastic return system form an oscillator (Fig. 25), the elastic return system comprising: a first elastic return element (2) in the form of a first hairspring having a first stiffness k1, a second elastic return element (51-52) having a second stiffness k2, and a third elastic return element (61, 114-115) having a third stiffness k3, wherein: k2+k3>k1 ([0013]), wherein the first elastic return element (2) and the second elastic return (51-52) element are assembled in series between the assembled balance (3) and the frame (53), wherein the third elastic return element (114-115) and the second elastic return element (51-52) are assembled in parallel between the frame (53, 116) and the first elastic return element (2).
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.
Claims 4-5, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Kahrobaiyan discloses the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the second stiffness k2 is greater than the first stiffness k1 by at least one order of magnitude ([0013]-[0014]). Kahrobaiyan’s stiffness is adjusted in the same manner as Applicant’s (see claim 1 rejection), so the relative stiffness is taught (see Remarks 2026-06-23 and Claim Interpretation).
Kahrobaiyan is silent regarding the first stiffness and third stiffness being of the same order, so that the second stiffness is greater than the third stiffness by at least one order of magnitude.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Kahrobaiyan’s first stiffness is a known stiffness appropriate for horology that predictably creates functional timepieces.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahrobaiyan’s third stiffness to be of the same order as Kahrobaiyan’s first stiffness, so that the second stiffness is also greater than the third stiffness by at least one order of magnitude. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to predictably obtain a balance whose oscillation frequency is appropriate for timekeeping.
Regarding claim 5, Kahrobaiyan discloses the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second stiffness k2 is greater than the first stiffness k1 by at least one order of magnitude ([0013])-[0014]. Kahrobaiyan’s stiffness is adjusted in the same manner as Applicant’s (see claim 1 rejection), so the relative stiffness is taught (see Remarks 2026-06-23 and Claim Interpretation).
Kahrobaiyan is silent regarding the second stiffness and third stiffness being of the same order, so that the third stiffness is greater than the first stiffness by at least one order of magnitude.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Kahrobaiyan’s second stiffness is a known stiffness appropriate for horology that predictably creates functional timepieces.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahrobaiyan’s third stiffness to be of the same order as Kahrobaiyan’s second stiffness, so that the third stiffness is also greater than the first stiffness by at least one order of magnitude. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to predictably obtain a balance whose oscillation frequency is appropriate for timekeeping.
Regarding claim 11, Kahrobaiyan discloses the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1.
Kahrobaiyan does not disclose at least one of the first, second, or third elastic return elements comprising metal.
Springs are often formed from metal due to metal’s high elasticity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Kahrobaiyan’s elastic return material for metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of obtaining an oscillatory element needed for timekeeping.
Regarding claim 14, Kahrobaiyan discloses the adjustment method as claimed in claim 13, the method comprising moving the screws or inertia blocks of the assembled balance in relation to the geometric axis ([0009]) and modifying the third stiffness k3 ([0101]).
Kahrobaiyan does not show the screws moving before the modifying of the third stiffness k3.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that given a multi-step method, one step must occur after another. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that moving screws on a balance is independent of modifying stiffness of a separate elastic element, so that moving the screws before or after would have symmetrical outcomes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have moved Kahrobaiyan’s screws before modifying the third stiffness. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this ordering because it would have been obvious to try as one of two identifiable, predictable orderings for the method that would both be expected to successfully change the oscillation frequency of the balance.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan in view of Gigandet (US 20090168610).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Kahrobaiyan discloses the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1.
Kahrobaiyan does not show the assembled balance and the elastic return system being configured and/or arranged so that an oscillation frequency of the oscillator is in a range of from 4-5 Hz.
Gigandet teaches an assembled balance with an oscillation frequency of 5 Hz ([0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kahrobaiyan’s oscillation frequency to be 5 Hz, as taught by Gigandet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create an accurate timepiece.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan in view of Di Domenico (US 2023/0176522).
Regarding claim 17, Kahrobaiyan discloses timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1.
Kahrobaiyan does not explicitly show k3=α×k1 in which 0.5≤α≤2, and k2=β×k1 and/or k2=β×k3 in which 10≤β≤80.
Di Domenico discloses a stiffness ratio between two elastic elements being between 10 and 80 due to a material of a first elastic element of the two elastic elements being silicon and a material of a second elastic element of the two elastic elements being metal ([0030], [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Kahrobaiyan’s first and second elastic element materials for Di Domenico’s first and second elastic element materials such that k2=β×k1 in which 10≤β≤80. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because Di Domenico’s materials are known materials for constructing elastic elements for a timepiece oscillator that predictably create an operational timepiece.
The combination of Kahrobaiyan and Di Domenico does not show k3=α×k1 in which 0.5≤α≤2 because the combination is silent on what the third elastic element is made of.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Kahrobaiyan’s third elastic element material for Di Domenico’s first elastic element material so that k3=α×k1 in which 0.5≤α≤2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because Di Domenico’s material is a known material for constructing elastic elements of a timepiece oscillator that predictably create an operational timepiece.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan in view of Legeret (US 20180024498).
Regarding claim 18, Kahrobaiyan discloses timepiece movement as claimed in claim 1.
Kahrobaiyan does not explicitly show k3=γ×k2 in which 0.5≤γ≤2, and k2=δ×k1 in which 100≤δ≤200.
Legeret discloses a stiffness ratio between two elastic elements being 100 ([0082]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Kahrobaiyan’s first and second elastic elements for Legeret’s first and second elastic elements such that k2=δ×k1 in which 100≤δ≤200. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a functional timepiece oscillator that will accurately tell time.
The combination of Kahrobaiyan and Legeret does not explicitly show k3=γ×k2 in which 0.5≤γ≤2 because the combination is silent on what the third elastic element is made of.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Kahrobaiyan’s third elastic element material for Legeret’s first elastic element material so that k3=γ×k2 in which 0.5≤γ≤2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because Legeret’s elastic element material is a known material for constructing elastic elements of a timepiece oscillator that predictably create an operational timepiece.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan in view of Stranczl (US 20160147197).
Regarding claim 20, Kahrobaiyan discloses the timepiece movement as claimed in claim 7.
Kahrobaiyan does not show the at least one first blade being linked to the assembled balance via a collet arranged at a first end of the first blade and fastened to a staff secured to a balance of the assembled balance.
Stranczl teaches (Figs. 1-2) a first blade (2) linked to an assembled balance (Figs. 1-2 and 4) via a collet (1) arranged at a first end of the first blade (Figs. 1-2) and fastened to a staff (4) secured to a balance of the assembled balance.
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 Stranczl’s collet and balance staff with Kahrobaiyan’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to increase a holding torque and prevent breaking due to excessive stress ([0004] and [0011] of Stranczl).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2026-06-23 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the enablement rejection of claim 18, Applicant responds that Applicant’s disclosed “various manners of adjusting the stiffness of an elastic return element” enable the relative stiffnesses claimed in claim 18, and therefore in claims 3-5, 16-17, and 21. Examiner interprets Applicant’s response as meaning that any reference having the same recited structure/adjustment method therefore possesses the same relative stiffnesses.
Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s argument that Kahrobaiyan does not teach stiffness k1, k2, and k3 such that k2 + k3 > k1, Examiner responds that because Kahrobaiyan has the structure claimed by Applicant (see claim 1 and 21’s rejections), Kahrobaiyan therefore teaches the relative stiffness. Also, paragraph [0013] cited in claim 21’s rejection states “the flexible element preferably having a rigidity greater than that of the strip.” In other words, k2 > k1, so k2 + k3 > k1 necessarily because stiffness cannot be non-negative.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22 is allowed as it recites the allowable subject matter identified in the prior office action in independent form.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not show or suggest a third elastic return element comprising a second hairspring including at least one second blade, a second end of which is intended to fasten said second hairspring such that an outer end of the second hairspring is fastened to the first elastic return element and an inner end is fastened to a frame, in combination with the other limitations.
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 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 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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights