Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/599,987

TIMEPIECE MODULE AND ELECTRONIC TIMEPIECE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Examiner
HWANG, MATTHEW DANIEL
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
98 granted / 118 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
165
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 118 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Interpretation In the claims, a “plate-like antenna” is one whose width and length are greater than its thickness ([0024] of Applicant’s specification). 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, 6, 10, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gutschenritter et al. (US 20130181873). Regarding claim 1, Gutschenritter teaches (Figs. 2A-2D) a timepiece module (Fig. 1, title) comprising: 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 Regarding claim 2, Gutschenritter teaches (Figs. 2A-2D) the timepiece module according to claim 1, 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 3, Glutschenritter teaches (Figs. 2A-2D) the timepiece module according to claim 1, 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 4, Gutschenritter teaches the timepiece module according to claim 1, 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). Regarding claims 6, 10, and 14, Gutschenritter teaches (Fig. 1) an electronic timepiece (Fig. 1 and title) comprising: the timepiece module according to respective claims 1-3 ([0025]); and a case (102) that houses the timepiece module. 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 5 and 7-9, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutschenritter et al. (US 20130181873) in view of Nakajima (US 20180284700). Regarding claim 5, Gutschenritter discloses the timepiece module according to claim 1. Gutschenritter 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. Regarding claims 7, 11, and 15, Gutschenritter discloses the electronic timepiece according to claims 6, 10, and 14, respectively, 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). Gutschenritter 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 9, 13, and 17, Gutschenritter discloses the electronic timepiece according to claims 6, 10, and 14, respectively. Gutschenritter 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). Claims 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutschenritter in view of Nakajima as applied to claims 7, 11, and 15, and further in view of Hirayama (US 20120075964). Regarding claims 8, 12, and 16, Gutschenritter discloses the electronic timepiece according to claims 7, 11, and 15, respectively, wherein the case body (102 in Fig. 1) is made of plastic, non-conductive, or non-metal material ([0015]) at least party 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 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). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iijima (US 20150109172) teaches a watch with a built in antenna (title). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569039
Band And Timepiece
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572115
FREQUENCY SETTING OF A HOROLOGICAL OSCILLATOR BY OPTOMECHANICAL DEFORMATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572117
MULTIFUNCTION CORRECTION DEVICE FOR A TIMEPIECE AND TIMEPIECE COMPRISING SUCH A MULTIFUNCTION CORRECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572114
MECHANICAL CLOCK FOR USE IN FLUID MEDIA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547123
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+6.1%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 118 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month