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 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 6, 18, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutschenritter et al. (US 20130181873) in view of Yang (CN 114520407).
Regarding claim 6, Gutschenritter teaches (Figs. 2A-2D) an electronic timepiece comprising: a timepiece module (Fig. 1, title); a display including a digital display screen ([0016]): and a case (102) that houses the timepiece module and the display, wherein the timepiece module includes: a circuit board (214) having a first surface (214); a plate-like antenna (212) extending in a direction to be away from the first surface of the circuit board; and a metal member (216) entirely disposed outside a first region that extends from a plate surface of the antenna outward in a normal direction of the antenna (R1 below) and outside a second region that coincides with the antenna in plan view viewed from above the first surface (R2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gutschenritter does not show the display being entirely disposed outside the second region.
Yang teaches a housing with a display and an antenna, wherein the display is entirely disposed outside a second region of the antenna such that the display and antenna do not overlap ([0018]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged Gutschenritter’s display and antenna so that the display is disposed entirely outside the second region, as suggested by Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this arrangement to prevent interference ([0018] of Yang).
Regarding claim 18, Gutschenritter teaches (Figs. 2A-2D) the electronic timepiece according to claim 6, wherein the metal member (216) includes a fixing member (236) that fixes a plurality of structures (214, 240) overlapping one another in the plan view, the plurality of structures including the circuit board (214), and wherein the fixing member includes a planar part (239) in a direction along the circuit board and a fitting part (236) fitted to a lateral surface of at least one of the plurality of structures.
Regarding claim 22, Glutschenritter teaches (Figs. 2A-2D) the electronic timepiece according to claim 6, wherein the metal member (216) includes a fixing member (236) that fixes a plurality of structures (214, 240) overlapping one another in the plan view, the plurality of structures including the circuit board (214), and wherein the fixing member includes a planar part (239) that spreads parallel to the circuit board (Fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 26, Gutschenritter teaches the electronic timepiece according to claim 6, wherein the metal member is entirely disposed outside a third region defined by extending the antenna parallel to the first surface and the plate surface of the antenna (R3 in above image).
Claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutschenritter et al. in view of Yang, and further in view of Nakajima (US 20180284700).
Regarding claims 19, 23, and 28, Gutschenritter discloses (Fig. 2A) the electronic timepiece according to claims 18, 22, and 6, respectively, wherein the plate surface (211) of the plate-like antenna extends in a vertical direction from the first surface (214) of the circuit board, and is disposed along a periphery of the circuit board (214) in the plan view (Fig. 2A), wherein the case includes a bezel (Fig. 1, structure surrounding 104 and at the top of 102) having an opening (104) and a case body (102) that covers at least a side of the timepiece module (the module 218 is inside the case body).
The combination of Gutschenritter and Yang does not show the bezel being made of metal and disposed entirely outside the second region.
Nakajima teaches (Figs. 3-4) a bezel (11 and 112) made of metal ([0066]) disposed entirely outside a second region that coincides with an antenna in plan view viewed from above the first surface (Fig. 3).
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 Gutschenritter’s bezel for Nakajima’s metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of obtaining a watch made from a premium material that has improved aesthetics but does not interfere with antenna communication.
Regarding claims 21, 25, and 30, Gutschenritter in view of Yang discloses the electronic timepiece according to claims 18, 22, and 6, respectively.
The combination of Gutschenritter and Yang does not show the case including an interior cover that supports at least the timepiece module, and wherein the interior cover is partly disposed along an outer surface of the timepiece module, made of metal, and entirely disposed outside the second region.
Nakajima teaches (Fig. 7) a case including an interior cover (92) that supports a timepiece module (724), wherein the interior cover is party disposed along an outer surface of the timepiece module (Figs. 4-7), made of metal ([0076]), and entirely disposed outside a second region that coincides with an antenna in plan view viewed from above the first surface (922, Figs. 4 and 7, and [0083]).
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 Nakajima’s interior cover with Gutschenritter’s case and module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to protect components of the watch from magnetic interference ([0076] of Nakajima).
Regarding claim 27, Gutschenritter in view of Yang discloses the electronic timepiece according to claim 6.
The combination of Gutschenritter and Yang does not show a battery that is disposed above the first surface of the circuit board, wherein the metal member includes at least one electronic component that is disposed above the first surface, and wherein the at least one electronic component is disposed, in plan view, outside a fourth region between the antenna and the battery.
Nakajima teaches (Figs. 4-5, 7) a battery (24) disposed above a first surface of a circuit board (724), wherein at least one electronic component (76) is disposed above the first surface and outside a fourth region between an antenna (40) and the battery in plan view (R4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Nakajima’s battery and electronic component with Gutschenritter’s circuit board such that the electronic component is disposed above the first surface and outside a fourth region between the antenna and the battery in plan view. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination as a known and predictable arrangement for organizing watch components that maximizes space efficiency and promotes antenna communication.
Claims 20, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutschenritter in view of Yang and Nakajima as applied to claims 18, 23, and 28, and further in view of Hirayama (US 20120075964).
Regarding claims 20, 24, and 29, Gutschenritter discloses the electronic timepiece according to claims 18, 23, and 28, respectively, wherein the/a case body (102 in Fig. 1) is made of plastic, non-conductive, or non-metal material ([0015]), covers at least a side of the timepiece module (Fig. 1), and at least partly disposed in the first region (the case body encloses the module, so at least part of the case body must overlap with the first region).
The combination of Gutschenritter, Yang, and Nakajima does not show the case body being made of resin.
Hirayama teaches a case body of a watch being made of resin (abstract, [0010]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed Gutschenritter’s case body out of resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this material choice to protect the watch from impact damage ([0010] of Hirayama) and reduce manufacturing costs ([0011] of Hirayama).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Whether Gutschenritter discloses a display entirely disposed outside the second region has been rendered moot by the current claim 6 rejection’s citation of Yang.
Applicant argues that Nakajima does not teach “a metal member entirely disposed outside a first region that extends from a plate surface of the plate-like antenna outward in a normal direction of the plate-like antenna.” This limitation is disclosed by Gutschenritter. Combining Nakajima’s electronic component with Gutschenritter maintains Gutschenritter’s teaching because the component is placed on the first surface which is outside the first region.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 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 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights