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
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a first position buffer as a buffer disposed” is idiomatically incorrect and redundant. The limitation is suggested to be changed to -a first position buffer- because a first position buffer is by definition a buffer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 10-11 and 14 recite limitations “when” a condition has been met; the limitations and condition themselves are therefore not strictly required. Any prior art reference that reads on claim 1 from which claims 10-11 and 14 depend but that does not meet the recited condition will also meet the limitations of claims 10-11 and 14. See MPEP 2111.04.II.
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 5-13 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 5 has ambiguous antecedent basis for “as a buffer” in line 2 because claim 1 already recites “a buffer.” For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been erased and is not considered.
Claim 9 has ambiguous antecedent basis for “a buffer” in line 2 because whether the limitation refers to claim 1’s buffer or a new buffer is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it has been read as “the first position buffer.”
Claim 10 has redundant antecedent basis for “a first position buffer” in line 2 because claim 1 already recites a first position buffer. Lines 1-4 of claim 10 are recommended to be changed to -The device case according to claim 1, wherein the device case includes a second position buffer disposed at a different position from that of the first position buffer, and the first position buffer and the-.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 14, the phrase "when" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Whether or not the inventions of claims 10-11 and 14 are positively reciting first and second position buffers disposed at different positions is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 has redundant antecedent basis for “a first position buffer” in line 2 because claim 1 already recites a first position buffer. Lines 1-4 of claim 1 are recommended to be changed to -The device case according to claim 1, wherein the device case includes a second position buffer disposed at a different position from that of the first position buffer, and the first position buffer and the-.
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 1-4, 9-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoo (JP 2019086333).
Regarding claim 1, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) a device case comprising: a first exterior (top of 5) that is placed on an upper surface side of a case body (5); a second exterior (13, 16) that covers at least an upper portion of the first exterior (Fig. 2); and a first position buffer (20) between the first exterior and the second exterior, wherein the first exterior includes an inclined surface (13b) on an upper surface side, and the first position buffer is disposed on the inclined surface of the first exterior (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Yokoo teaches the device case according to claim 1, wherein, on at least part of a circumferential surface of the case body, the second exterior covers from the upper portion of the first exterior to an outer circumferential side surface of the case body and is fixed to the case body. The second exterior includes a portion 16 covering the outer circumferential side surface of the case body 5 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Yokoo teaches the device case according to claim 1, wherein the case body, the first exterior, and the second exterior are formed of a metallic material ([0012], [0071], and [0083] of the translation.)
Regarding claim 4, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) the device case according to claim 1, wherein a recess (13b) that houses at least part of the first position buffer (20) is formed in at least one of the first exterior (5) or the second exterior.
Regarding claim 9, Yoko teaches (Fig. 2) the device case according to claim 1, whereon at least part of the first position buffer is formed with a protrusion (the buffer 20 protrudes from the surface of 5).
Regarding claim 10, Yoko teaches the device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) the device case according to claim 1, wherein the device case includes a second position buffer (14) disposed at a position different from that of the first position buffer (Fig. 2), and the first position buffer and the second position buffer are formed of materials having quality different from each other. The first and second position buffers have the material quality of being formed from different atoms (i.e., the atoms that form the first buffer’s material are different from the atoms that form the second buffer’s material, because the second and third buffers are two separate structures).
Regarding claim 15, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) the device case according to claim 1, further comprising a second position buffer (14) between the case body (5) and the second exterior (16).
Regarding claim 16, Yokoo teaches a timepiece comprising the device case according to claim 1 ([0001]).
Regarding claim 17, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) a device case comprising: a first exterior (top surface of (5) that is placed on an upper surface side of a case body (5); a second exterior (13, 16) that covers at least an upper portion of the first exterior; a first position buffer (20) disposed between the first exterior (5) and the second exterior (13); and a second position buffer (14) as a buffer disposed between the case body (5) and the second exterior (16).
Regarding claim 18, Yokoo teaches the device case according to claim 17, wherein, on at least part of a circumferential surface of the case body, the second exterior covers from the upper portion (covered by 13) of the first exterior (5) to an outer circumferential side (covered by 16) surface of the case body (5) and is fixed to the case body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Yokoo teaches the device case according to claim 17, wherein the case body, the first exterior, and the second exterior are formed of a metallic material ([0012], [0071], and [0083] of the translation.)
Regarding claim 20, Yokoo teaches the timepiece comprising the device case according to claim 17 ([0001]).
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo.
Regarding claim 14, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) the device case according to claim 1, wherein the device case includes a second position buffer (14) disposed at a position different from that of the first position buffer (20).
Yokoo does not show the first and second position buffers having thicknesses different from one another.
The courts have ruled that a change in the relative dimensions between two structures disclosed by the prior art is, without any criticality, within the level of skill in the art that a person of having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
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 modified Yokoo’s first and second position buffers to have different thicknesses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so as to custom-fit the buffers into the dimensions of their target locations and to achieve a desired resistance to shocks.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo in view of Hiranuma (US 20100220560).
Regarding claim 5, Yokoo teaches (Fig. 2) the device case according to claim 1.
Yokoo does not disclose a second position buffer between the case body and the first exterior.
Hiranuma teaches (Fig. 2) a second position buffer (32, 42) disposed between a case body (21) and a first exterior (31).
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 Yokoo’s case body for Hiranuma’s second position buffer, case body, and first exterior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of protecting the case body from shocks and impacts to the first exterior.
Regarding claim 6, Yokoo in view of Hiranuma discloses (Fig.2 of Hiranuma) the device case according to claim 5, wherein the second position buffer includes: a second buffer (42) that is disposed to contact an upper surface of the case body (21); and a third buffer (32) that is disposed to contact a side surface of the case body (21), and the second buffer and the third buffer are disposed apart from each other (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Yokoo in view of Hiranuma discloses the device case according to claim 6, wherein the second buffer and the third buffer have hardness different from each other and/or are formed of materials having quality different from each other. The second and third buffers have the material quality of being formed from different atoms (i.e., the atoms that form the second buffer’s material are different from the atoms that form the third buffer’s material, because the second and third buffers are two separate structures).
Regarding claim 8, Yokoo in view of Hiranuma discloses the device case according to claim 5, wherein a recess that houses at least part of the second position buffer is formed in at least one of the case body or the first exterior (see recess housing buffer 32 in Fig. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo in view of Hirayama (US 20210232096) and Ozawa (US 20190179265).
Regarding claim 10, Yokoo teaches the device case according to claim 1, comprising first and second position buffers (14, 20 in Fig. 2) disposed at different positions.
Yokoo does not teach the first and second position buffers having different hardnesses.
Hirayama teaches a buffer formed of rubber ([0064]).
Ozawa teaches a buffer formed of resin ([0012]).
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 Yokoo’s first buffer material to be rubber and Yokoo’s second buffer material to be resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as known and predictable materials that protect against shocks and impacts.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo in view of Hiranuma as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Hirayama (US 20210232096) and Ozawa (US 20190179265).
Regarding claim 12, Yokoo in view of Hiranuma discloses the device according to claim 6.
The combination of Yokoo and Hiranuma does not show the first position buffer and the second buffer formed of fluorinated rubber, and the third buffer formed of fluorinated resin.
Hirayama discloses a buffer formed of fluorinated rubber ([0064]).
Ozawa discloses a buffer formed of fluorinated resin ([0012]).
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 Yokoo and Hiranuma’s first and second position buffers’ material for fluorinated rubber and Yokoo and Hiranuma’s third buffer for fluorinated resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as predictable, known materials for making buffers for device cases.
Regarding claim 13, Yokoo in view of Hiranuma, Hirayama, and Ozawa discloses the device case according to claim 12, wherein a lower corner on a case body side (bottom right corner of 5 in Fig. 2 of Yokoo) is rounded off.
The combination of Yokoo, Hiranuma, and Hirayama does not show an upper corner on a first exterior side of the third buffer rounded off.
Ozawa teaches an upper corner of a first exterior side of a buffer (14 in Fig. 2) being rounded off.
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 the third buffer of Yokoo’s device case to have a rounded off corner on the upper corner of the first exterior side, as suggested by Ozawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a rounded corner would create play that allows for elastic deformation in case of shocks and thermal expansion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawabe (US 20210325831) discloses a watch with exterior parts (19 in Fig. 1).
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 10-6 PM 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 2833