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 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 9-14 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.
Claims 9 and 10 both recite “an interior side of the cover plate” in lines 4-5, which claim 1 now recites in line 7. Whether the recitations refer to the same or new interior side is unclear. The limitations have been read as -the interior side of the cover plate-.
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 1-2, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihochi (US 4362400) in view of Ozawa (US 20090003141), Benoist et al. (US 20220382217), Kitajima (US 20050117087), and Toyoda (US 4459037).
Regarding claim 1, Ihochi discloses (Fig. 1) a device comprising: a case body including a peripheral wall portion (1); a cover frame (bottom of 1) provided on one side of the peripheral wall portion of the case body with an opening (for 6); a cover plate (6) formed to have a plate shape and arranged in the opening of the cover frame (Fig. 1); a vibration plate (8) arranged on an interior side of the cover plate; and a piezoelectric plate (7) arranged on an interior side of the vibration plate, wherein an inner peripheral surface of the cover frame (where 1 meets 12) and an outer peripheral surface of the vibration plate are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1).
Ihochi does not show the cover frame being made of metal, the vibration plate being made of metal, and the piezoelectric plate being made of ceramic, and the cover frame and vibration plate not being in contact with one another.
Ozawa teaches a cover frame made of metal ([0072]).
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 the teaching of Ozawa when selecting a material for the cover frame of Ihochi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to achieve the predictable result of creating a durable timepiece that securely holds its components together ([0007] of Ozawa).
The combination of Ihochi and Ozawa does not show the vibration plate being made of metal and the piezoelectric plate being made of ceramic.
Benoist teaches a vibration plate made of metal ([0057]).
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 Ihochi’s vibration plate material for metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known material that predictable vibrates.
The combination of Ihochi, Ozawa, and Benoist does not show the piezoelectric plate being ceramic.
Kitajima teaches a piezoelectric ceramic plate ([0066]).
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 Ihochi’s piezoelectric plate for Kitajima’s piezoelectric plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substation as a known, predictable, and equivalent shape/material for acquiring a piezoelectric element.
The combination of Ihochi, Ozawa, Benoist, and Kitajima does not show the cover frame and vibration plate not being in contact with one another.
Toyoda teaches (Fig. 2) a cover frame (4) and a vibration plate (2), wherein an inner peripheral surface of the opening of the cover frame and an outer peripheral surface of the vibration plate are spaced apart from each other such that the cover frame and the vibration plate are not in contact with one another.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that to make two concentric/coaxial elements in contact with other stop being in contact with each other, one only needs to relatively decrease the radius of the inner element to space the two elements apart.
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 Ihochi’s vibration plate to be spaced apart from the cover frame such that the cover frame and vibration plate are not in contact with one another, as taught by Toyoda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known and obvious dimension/arrangement for successfully putting a vibration plate in a device. Furthermore, the courts have held that a change in relative dimensions is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and amounts to nothing more than a desired size a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of an invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda discloses the device according to claim 1.
Ihochi does not show the inner peripheral surface of the opening of the cover frame and an outer peripheral surface of the cover plate being spaced apart from each other.
Ozawa teaches (Fig. 1) a back cover, wherein an inner peripheral surface of an opening of a cover frame (121) and an outer peripheral surface of a cover plate (122) being spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1 shows 121 and 122 being spaced apart).
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 Ihochi’s cover plate for Ozawa’s back cover and cover plate such that inner peripheral surface of the opening of the cover frame and an outer peripheral surface of the cover plate are spaced apart from each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to waterproof and shockproof the device ([0037] of Ozawa).
Regarding claims 15-16, Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda discloses the device according to respective claims 1-2, wherein the cover frame is a screw back type (Fig. 5 and [0041] of Ozawa).
Ihochi does not show the cover plate being formed of sapphire glass.
Ozawa teaches a glass cover plate ([0072]), and sapphire glass being a type of glass ([0153]).
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 Ihochi’s cover plate be formed of sapphire glass, as suggested by Ozawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of having a scratch-resistant, hard, strong, and visually pleasing device.
Regarding claims 19-20, Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda discloses (Fig. 1, Ihochi) a watch (title, Ihochi)) comprising the device as recited in respective claims 1-2; a watch module (3) arranged in a housing portion formed inward of the peripheral wall portion of the case body; and a cover (5) covering another side of the watch module.
Claims 3-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda, and further in view of Taga et al. (US 20210313670).
Regarding claims 3-4, Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda discloses the device according to respective claims 1-2.
Ihochi in view of Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda does not show a first joining member (123) comprising an annular packing member (123 surrounds 122; see Fig. 2 and abstract) arranged between the inner peripheral surface of the opening of the cover frame and an outer peripheral surface of the cover plate (Fig. 1).
Ozawa discloses (Fig. 1) a packing member (123) surrounding a cover plate (122). See abstract.
Ihochi’s cover plate is circular (Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an element that surrounds Ihochi’s cover plate would therefore be annular in shape.
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 combined Ozawa’s first joining member with Ihochi’s device such that an annular packing member surrounds Ihochi’s cover plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to hold the cover plate ([0137] of Ozawa) and seal the device to protect it from debris and moisture. Furthermore, changes in shape, are, absent any criticality, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.04.
Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, and Toyoda does not show an annular third joining member arranged between the cover plate and the vibration plate, wherein a gap is formed between the vibration plate and the cover plate in an opening of the annular third joining member, and the packing member of the first joining member being annular.
Taga teaches (Fig. 3) a third joining member (TP1) arranged between a main surface on another side of a first plate (32) and a main surface on one side of a second plate (20) and formed to be annular, wherein a gap is formed between the two plates in an opening of the third joining member (Fig. 3). See also [0035].
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 Taga’s third joining member with Ihochi’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to achieve the predictable result of securing the device’s components together so that the device does not fall apart.
Regarding claims 5-6, Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, Toyoda, and Taga discloses the device according to claims 3-4, respectively.
Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, Toyoda, and Taga does not show the vibration plate being provided in a region corresponding to the opening of the annular third joining member.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if a joining member adheres two elements together, then a third element placed in between the joining member and the two elements would block the joining member from adhering the two elements.
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 provided Ihochi’s piezoelectric ceramic plate in a region corresponding to the opening of the third joining member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this provision as a predictable and identifiable location for placing the piezoelectric ceramic plate without interfering with the functionality of the third joining member. The courts have also held that absent any criticality, a change of location is an obvious modification one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to provide using routine experimentation to achieve an invention’s intended use since the courts have ruled that there is no invention in shifting position if a device’s operation is not modified. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claims 17-18, Ihochi in view of Ozawa, Benoist, Kitajima, Toyoda, and Taga discloses the device according to respective claims 3-4, wherein the cover frame is a screw back type (Fig. 5 and [0041] of Ozawa).
Ihochi does not show the cover plate including sapphire glass.
Ozawa teaches a glass cover plate ([0072]), and sapphire glass being a type of glass ([0153]).
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 Ihochi’s cover plate to include sapphire glass, as suggested by Ozawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable result of having a scratch-resistant, hard, strong, and visually pleasing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are allowed.
Claims 9-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 7-8, although Suda (US 3,906,713) teaches conductive solder arranged on another side of a piezoelectric ceramic plate, and a covering plate arranged on the other side of the piezoelectric ceramic plate, with the conductive solder interposed between the two plates (column 3, lines 20-31), the prior art does not show or suggest a conducive adhesive tape arranged between the ceramic plate and a covering plate arranged on an interior side of the ceramic plate, in combination with the other limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. In particular, Toyoda has been cited as teaching the amended limitation.
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 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 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights