Detailed Action begins on Page 3
Table of Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
Drawings 3
Claim Objections 4
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 6
Claims 13 and 15 6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 8
Claim 8 8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 9
Claims 1-9, 14, and 16-18 9
Claims 1, 7, and 10 12
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 11-12 14
Citation of Relevant Art 15
Conclusion 17
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in claim 12 the limitation “wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set are coaxial rollers, and are at least partially overlapping in said display area” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Additionally, claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the display wheel set of said display wheel sets which has the lowest number of positions has a viewing window adjacent to each of its indicators and through which the other of said display wheel sets is visible” and this claim depends from claim 12. No drawings are provided showing the claimed partial overlap with coaxial rollers and further do not include a viewing window when the display wheels sets are coaxial rollers.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “More particularly, the first display wheel set 10 and the second display wheel set 20 are coaxial rollers, and are at least partially overlapping in the display area 30.” as described in paragraph [0029] of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The structural detail of the first and second display wheel sets being coaxial and partially overlapping is shown for when the display wheel sets are discs [fig. 10] but not when they are coaxial rollers. Paragraph [0029] does not point to a particular figure showing the “partially overlapping” feature for the coaxial rollers, and figure 6 and 15 showing the display wheel sets as coaxial rollers do show this feature. Either there is another meaning being given to “partially overlapping in the display area” than a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret it, or this feature is not included in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 9-11 are objected to because of minor informalities.
Claim 6 recites “according to claims 2” and the plural “claims” should instead recite the singular “claim” when referring to the display mechanism according to claim 2.
Claims 6 recites “and in that said coupling elements comprise” and the use “in that” as a transitional phrase should be replaced or removed because as currently written it is unclear if it is requiring a further narrowing of a previously recited limitation or an elaboration of what the previous limitation requires, or if it is meant to be a transition phrase along the lines “and additionally” or “and wherein”. The grammar of “in that” is confusing as currently written and requires fixing.
Claim 7 recites “n that said second display wheel set comprises” and “in that said display area is arranged” and the use “in that” as a transitional phrase should be replaced or removed because as currently written it is unclear if it is requiring a further narrowing of a previously recited limitation or an elaboration of what the previous limitation requires, or if it is meant to be a transition phrase along the lines “and additionally” or “and wherein”. The grammar of “in that” is confusing as currently written and requires fixing.
Claim 9 recites “and in that that the display wheel set of said display wheel sets which has the smallest number of positions has a viewing window” and the use “in that” as a transitional phrase should be replaced or removed because as currently written it is unclear if it is requiring a further narrowing of a previously recited limitation or an elaboration of what the previous limitation requires, or if it is meant to be a transition phrase along the lines “and additionally” or “and wherein”. The grammar of “in that” is confusing as currently written and requires fixing.
Claim 10 recites “and in that that the display wheel set of said display wheel sets which has the smallest number of positions has a viewing window” and the use “in that” as a transitional phrase should be replaced or removed because as currently written it is unclear if it is requiring a further narrowing of a previously recited limitation or an elaboration of what the previous limitation requires, or if it is meant to be a transition phrase along the lines “and additionally” or “and wherein”. The grammar of “in that” is confusing as currently written and requires fixing.
Claim 11 recites “and in that said first indicators and said second indicators are always spaced apart” and the use “in that” as a transitional phrase should be replaced or removed because as currently written it is unclear if it is requiring a further narrowing of a previously recited limitation or an elaboration of what the previous limitation requires, or if it is meant to be a transition phrase along the lines “and additionally” or “and wherein”. The grammar of “in that” is confusing as currently written and requires fixing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 13 and 15
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites the limitation “wherein the display wheel set of said display wheel sets which has the lowest number of positions has a viewing window adjacent to each of its indicators and through which the other of said display wheel sets is visible” and this claim depends from claim 12 which recites the limitation “wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set are coaxial rollers”. While paragraph [0030] of the specification recites “More particularly, the rolling display wheel set of the rolling display wheel sets 10, 20 that has the smallest number of positions has a viewing window 18, 28, adjacent to each of its indicators 11, 21, and through which the other of the display wheel sets 20, 10 is visible, for the combined and aligned display of a first indicator 11 and a second indicator 21 in the display area 30” there is not any details into how this viewing window is accomplished for coaxial rollers. The drawings do not show this claimed feature and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not find the addition of the viewing window a simple or well understood feature for display wheel sets that are coaxial rollers and without additional details on how this is accomplished there is insufficient written description support to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites the limitation “wherein said first display wheel set is a units display wheel set with 5 positions and rotational sections corresponding to the digits from 0 to 9” and it is not described in sufficient detail in the specification or shown in the drawings how a unit display wheel with digits from 0 to 9 is accomplished by a display wheel set with 5 positions and rotational sections. Details into how the “rotational sections” part of the limitation would increase the number of digits to the ten required for 0 to 9 when there only 5 positions are not recited. Without any written description for this feature, the specification does not appear to provide support for more than five digits when there are five positions claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites the limitation “wherein said first display wheel set and/or said second display wheel set comprises a plurality of said first indicators, respectively second indicators, which are identical to each other” and the part of this limitation reciting “respectively second indicators” is not clear in what it requires of the claim, if anything at all, based on the current grammar and punctuation. If the claim is intended to have the first display wheel set comprise the plurality of first indicators and/or the second display wheel set comprise the second indicators it should be rewritten to more clearly claim because currently “respectively second indicators” does require anything due to not making grammatical sense.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 14, and 16-18
Claims 1-9, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meister et al. (GB 2050006 A, hereinafter “Meister”).
Regarding Claim 1, Meister discloses a horological display mechanism [fig. 1] comprising at least first drive elements (15, 16) arranged to rotate a first display wheel set (7) through a first number of steps [page 2, lines 17-28] in order to display a first magnitude (units) [fig. 1], and second drive elements (19, 20, 21) arranged to rotate a second display wheel (9) set through a second number of steps [page 2, lines 32-50, page 4 lines 1-5] in order to display a second magnitude (tens) [fig. 7], wherein the display mechanism comprises coupling elements (17, 18), which are separate from said first drive elements and said second drive elements [fig. 1], and which are arranged to index said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set relative to each other, to ensure their alignment, in an alignment direction (A), in a display area (11) comprised in the display mechanism [fig. 1, indexes first display wheel set which through its connection and driving of the second display wheel set indexes the second display wheel set].
Regarding Claim 2, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the ratio between said first number of steps and said second number of steps is an integer number [figs. 1 and 7] (5 sets of 4 for the tens indicator and 2 sets of 10 for the units indicator, resulting in an 1:1 integer ratio).
Regarding Claim 3, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein in order to obtain an integer number of steps, a plurality of identical indications are repeated on said first display wheel set and/or a plurality of identical indications are repeated on said second display wheel set [fig. 1, fig. 7] (both display wheel sets include duplicate indications).
Regarding Claim 4, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said coupling elements are arranged to produce a magnetic and/or mechanical alignment coupling [fig. 1] (mechanical).
Regarding Claim 5, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set rotate coaxially [fig. 1, fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 6, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set rotate coaxially [fig. 1, fig. 3] and in that said coupling elements comprise, in order to ensure the indexing of said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set which are coaxial with one another, at least two couplings (7a) arranged to produce a magnetic and/or mechanical alignment coupling, and distributed according to the display steps [fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 7, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set comprises a first number of positions occupied by first indicators or by first windows or by empty spaces [fig. 1], in that said second display wheel set comprises a second number of positions occupied by second indicators or by second windows or by empty spaces [fig. 7], in that said display area (11) is arranged to show the user, at a given moment, the juxtaposition in alignment, on said first display wheel set of either a said first indicator for displaying the current value of said first magnitude on said first display wheel set or a said first window and, on said second display wheel set either a said second indicator for displaying the current value of said second magnitude or a said second window [page 2, lines 2-7].
Regarding Claim 8, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and/or said second display wheel set comprises a plurality of said first indicators, respectively second indicators, which are identical to each other [fig. 1, fig. 7] (both display wheel sets include duplicate digits).
Regarding Claim 9, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set rotate coaxially [fig. 1], wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set are coaxial discs or rings [fig. 1, fig. 7], said first display wheel set carrying said first indicators over a first diameter and said second display wheel set carrying said second indicators over a second diameter that is different from said first diameter [fig. 1] (7 larger diameter than 9),
and in that said first indicators and said second indicators are always spaced apart from one another.
Regarding Claim 14, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said display mechanism is a date display mechanism with discs or rollers [fig. 1, discs], wherein said first display wheel set is a units display wheel set with 10 positions corresponding to the digits from 0 to 9 [fig. 1], and said second display wheel set is a tens display wheel set with 5 positions comprising the duplication of one of the tens digits from 0 to 3 [fig. 7] (there are 5 duplicate positions for each of the tens digits 0 to 3), or with 10 positions comprising two sequences of 5 positions each and comprising the duplication of one of the tens digits from 0 to 3.
Regarding Claim 16, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 1, and further discloses a timepiece comprising at least one said display mechanism according to claim 1 [page 1, lines 3-14] [fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 17, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 16, and further discloses wherein at least one said display mechanism is a calendar mechanism [page 1, lines 3-14] [fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 18, Meister discloses the display mechanism according to claim 16, and further discloses wherein said timepiece is a watch [page 1, lines 3-14] [fig. 1].
Claims 1, 7, and 10
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano (CN 102681423 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirano discloses a horological display mechanism comprising at least first drive elements (24, 30) arranged to rotate a first display wheel set (20) through a first number of steps [0138, 0140] in order to display a first magnitude (BD1) [fig. 1], and second drive elements (60) arranged to rotate a second display wheel set (40) through a second number of steps [0143, 1045] in order to display a second magnitude (BD2) [fig. 2], wherein the display mechanism comprises coupling elements (26, 50), which are separate from said first drive elements and said second drive elements, and which are arranged to index said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set relative to each other, to ensure their alignment, in an alignment direction (A), in a display area comprised in the display mechanism [0152-0154].
Regarding Claim 7, Hirano discloses the display mechanism according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set comprises a first number of positions occupied by first indicators or by first windows or by empty spaces [fig. 1] (units, digits 0-9), in that said second display wheel set comprises a second number of positions occupied by second indicators or by second windows or by empty spaces [fig. 2] (tens, digits 0-3), in that said display area is arranged to show the user, at a given moment, the juxtaposition in alignment, on said first display wheel set of either a said first indicator for displaying the current value of said first magnitude on said first display wheel set or a said first window and, on said second display wheel set either a said second indicator for displaying the current value of said second magnitude or a said second window [fig. 2] [0150].
Regarding Claim 10, Hirano discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set rotate coaxially [figs. 1 and 2] and wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set are coaxial discs or rings [discs, figs. 1 and 2], said first display wheel set carrying said first indicators over a first diameter [fig. 1], and said second display wheel set carrying said second indicators over a second diameter that is equal to said first diameter [fig. 2], and in that that the display wheel set of said display wheel sets which has the smallest number of positions (40) has a viewing window (44) adjacent to each of its indicators [fig. 2] and through which the other of said display wheel sets is visible for the combined and aligned viewing of a said first indicator and a said second indicator in said display area [fig. 2] [1050].
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 11-12
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Claret et al. (EP 1594019 B1, hereinafter “Claret”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claret discloses a horological display mechanism (7) comprising at least first drive elements (15) arranged to rotate a first display wheel set (16) through a first number of steps in order to display a first magnitude (units, digits 0 to 9) [0021], and second drive elements (19) arranged to rotate a second display wheel set (20) through a second number of steps in order to display a second magnitude (tens, digits 0 to 3) [0023], wherein the display mechanism comprises coupling elements (18, 25), which are separate from said first drive elements and said second drive elements, and which are arranged to index said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set relative to each other, to ensure their alignment, in an alignment direction (A), in a display area (4) comprised in the display mechanism [0022, 0025].
Regarding Claim 7, Claret discloses the display mechanism according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set comprises a first number of positions occupied by first indicators or by first windows or by empty spaces [0021], in that said second display wheel set comprises a second number of positions occupied by second indicators or by second windows or by empty spaces [0023], in that said display area (4) is arranged to show the user, at a given moment, the juxtaposition in alignment, on said first display wheel set of either a said first indicator for displaying the current value of said first magnitude on said first display wheel set or a said first window and, on said second display wheel set either a said second indicator for displaying the current value of said second magnitude or a said second window [figs. 1-2].
Regarding Claim 8, Claret discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and/or said second display wheel set comprises a plurality of said first indicators, respectively second indicators, which are identical to each other [0023] (two sets of tens digits 0 to 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Claret discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set are coaxial rollers [fig. 2], and in that said first indicators and said second indicators are always spaced apart [fig. 2, fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 12, Claret discloses the display mechanism according to claim 7, and further discloses wherein said first display wheel set and said second display wheel set are coaxial rollers, and are at least partially overlapping in said display area [fig. 3] (overlap in the direction of the rotation axis shown, i.e .from a side view).
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zaugg et al. (US 20180011444 A1) discloses a display mechanism, for a watch, comprising a roller pivoting about a main axis and comprising flaps, each pivoting about a secondary axis parallel to the main axis and having two faces, first drive means for pivoting the roller about the main axis, and second drive means for pivoting a flap about its secondary axis, in a determined position of this secondary axis relative to the main axis, and which include, at each flap, a drive pinion cooperating with a control means to modify, in sequence or continuously, the position of the successive flaps of the same roller or to modify, on demand, the position of a specific flap.
Lacroix-Gachet (CH 705476 A2) discloses a display system for a timepiece including an internal roller and an external roller arranged coaxially inside each other. Each roller includes a series of indications to display time information. The external roller includes a window driven in rotation about its axis to scroll the indications with respect to a preset angular position. The internal roller is arranged to be driven in rotation about its axis to scroll the indications through the window of the external roller. A drive mechanism rotates drive members of the rollers for rotating the rollers at preset time intervals.
Watanabe (US 20050169109 A1) discloses a timepiece with a calendar mechanism having a 1st date indicator and a 2nd date indicator, a constitution in which a rotation center of the 1st date indicator and a rotation center of the 2nd date indicator are disposed in the same position without increasing the number of times at which the calendar mechanism must be corrected in the end of the month.
Boris (US 2073275 A) discloses a clock with an automatic calendar, including a calendar-mechanism actuated by the movement of the clock for automatic indication of the date, of the month and, if desirable, of the day of the week, this mechanism being combined with a mechanism of manual change of the designation of the month and of manual adjustment of the date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2844