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.
Claim 7 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.
Claim limitation “gripping means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide structure to the gripping means or how the gripping means makes it easier for the user to handle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaller US 20230140150 in view of Liu US 20140215766.
Regarding Claim 1, Schaller discloses an interchangeable device (1) comprising a bar (para 29, “a strip of a watch case”), the device comprising an insert (2) provided with a channel (5) arranged to receive the bar, and a latch (12) arranged to cooperate with the insert (2) so as to close the channel (50) (5), the latch (12) being arranged to slide from a locked position wherein the bar is held in the channel (5) to an open position wherein the bar is free, the latch (12) being held in its locked position by resilient return means (10) (Fig 1a-2).
Schaller does not disclose a buckle and a tongue articulated around the bar.
Liu discloses an interchangeable buckle with a buckle (Liu, 2) and a tongue (Liu, 211) articulated around a bar (Liu, 22) (Liu, Fig 1)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the interchangeable watch band mechanism of Schaller to be used for an interchangeable buckle with a tongue as taught by Liu to create a replaceable buckle to change the buckle portion to suit their clothes for a different visual experience, or once the buckle portion is damaged.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the insert (Schaller, 2) comprises a recess (Schaller, 30) intended to receive the latch (Schaller, 12), the recess (Schaller, 30) also acting as a stop (Schaller, para 38, “slope 35 also allows to act as a stop by defining and limiting the angular stroke of the latch 12,” Examiner is interpreting the slope 35 to be a part of the recess 30) when the latch (Schaller, 12) is in the open position (Schaller, Fig 1b).
Regarding Claim 3, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the channel (Schaller, 5) comprises a passage (Liu, annotated Fig 1) for the tongue (Liu, 211).
Regarding Claim 4, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the latch comprises a beak (Schalley, annotated Fig 1a) arranged to close the channel (Schaller, 5) and hold the bar in the channel (Schaller, 5), the beak having a passage (Liu, annotated Fig 1) for the tongue (Liu, 211).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the recess (Schaller, 30) comprises, on internal side walls (52, 53) (Schaller, 31, 32) of the insert, guide grooves (Schaller, 37) arranged to cooperate with pivot clicks (Schaller, 11) integral with the latch.
Regarding Claim 6, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the insert has blind holes (Schaller, 130) arranged to receive the resilient return means, the blind holes facing the latch (Schaller, 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Schaller in view of Liu discloses the invention except wherein the latch (Schaller, 12) comprises gripping means (64).
Official Notice is taken that adding gripping means to a latch is conventional or well-known feature in the art.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add gripping means to the latch of Schaller in view of Liu for ease of use of the mechanism
Regarding Claim 8, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the insert (Schaller, 2) comprises stop means (Schaller, 30) for limiting the travel of the latch (Schaller, Fig 2)
Regarding Claim 9, Schaller in view of Liu discloses wherein the resilient return means (10) include helical springs.
Regarding Claim 10, Schaller in view of Liu discloses a watch (Schaller, watch) comprising an interchangeable buckle device (Liu, Fig 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu US 9930936 discloses a removable belt buckle. Fogelson discloses a demountable belt buckle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677