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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Regarding claim 1, which recites the limitation “further comprising setting means cooperating with the actuator so as to be able to displace the movable part of the actuator between a plurality of positions”. Claim 1 invokes 35 § 112(f) due to a) the recitation of “setting means”; b) the recitation of “... so as to be able to ...”; and c) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The term “setting means” was found in the specification, however, no structure for the setting means is disclosed in the specification.
Claim 6 recites “... the rigid sections are lengthened so that the next translation stage can be associated therewith ...”. The term “lengthened” is being interpreted by the examiner to be the adjective form (e.g.- elongated) as opposed to verb form (e.g.- being acted upon to extend the length).
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 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, which recites the limitation “further comprising setting means cooperating with the actuator so as to be able to displace the movable part of the actuator between a plurality of positions”. There is insufficient support for this term in the specification or claims.
Further regarding claim 1, which recites the limitation “the actuator” in ln. 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The term “a micromechanical actuator” is introduced in ln. 4 of the claim, and referenced as “the micromechanical actuator” in ln. 4-5. However, subsequent recitations refer only to “the actuator”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, claims 1, 13, and 15 will be examined as if the term “micromechanical” has been removed from the claims.
Regarding claim 4, which recites the limitation “two consecutive translation stages are arranged head-to-tail relative to one another”. The term “head-to-tail” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “head-to-tail” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite arrangement, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “head-to-tail” has no widely accepted definition in the art of horology. For the purposes of compact prosecution “head-to-tail” is being interpreted as meaning “in series relative to one another”.
Regarding claim 6, which recites the limitation "the rigid sections" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The term “a rigid section” is introduced in claim 3, which is not included in the dependency for claim 6. Additionally, the term “the next rigid section” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is improper because it is not a single sentence. In addition, the claim is considered indefinite because there is a question as to whether the feature introduced by the use of the term “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, “the second rigid section” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, "the rigid section" lacks antecedent basis. The term “the first side” lacks antecedent basis; “a first side” is introduced in claim 8 which is not included in the dependency for claim 10. The term “the second side” lacks antecedent basis; “a second side” is introduced in claim 9 which is not included in the dependency for claim 10.
Further regarding claim 10, the term “the translation stage” in ln. 2 is indefinite as the dependency of claim 2 (the parent claim for claim 10) includes the recitation of “at least two translation stages”, “a first translation stage”, and “a last translation stage”. The term is indefinite as it is unclear which of the translations stages is being referred to.
Regarding claim 11, "each rigid section" lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-2, 4-6, 11-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kahrobaiyan (US 20220171336, hereinafter Kahrobaiyan).
Regarding claim 1, Kahrobaiyan discloses “Actuation system for a horological movement, the actuation system being configured to be able to displace, at least in part, a part between a plurality of positions, the actuation system comprising: a actuator (para. [0093], "prestressing means"; fig 19, element 6) configured to be engaged with said part, the actuator comprising a stationary part (para. [0093], “fixed support”; fig. 19, element 73) configured to be mounted to be stationary, with respect to a plate of the horological movement (para. [0076], “attached to the disc of the movement”), and a movable part (para. [0093], “first rigid body 71 in the form of an elbow”; fig. 19, element 71) that is movable with respect to the stationary part (the elbow portion of first rigid body (71) moves relative to the fixed support (73) when acted upon by the prestressing means (6)), the actuator including a spring part (para. [0093], “blades”; fig. 19, element 74) connecting the movable part to the stationary part, the spring part carrying the movable part (the blades connect the fixed support (73) to the second body(75)), the actuation system further comprising setting means (fig. 19, elements 81 and 84-87) cooperating with the actuator so as to be able to displace the movable part of the actuator between a plurality of positions (para. [0096], "The free end 86 of the lever is in a U shape, on which it is possible to act by actuating it laterally"), wherein the spring part comprises a guide with flexible blades (para. [0092], "the prestressing means 6 include a spring formed by flexible blades").”
Regarding claim 2, Kahrobaiyan discloses “the flexible-blade guide comprises at least two translation stages (para. [0093], “two rigid bodies”; fig. 19, elements 71, 75; and para. [0096], “flexible blade 82 provided with a rigid central portion 83”; fig. 19, elements 82-83 act as a translation stage) arranged in series (71 and 75 are in series), with a first translation stage being connected to the stationary part (second body (75) is connected to support (73) via blades (74)), and a last translation stage (portion of first body 71 parallel to second body 75) being connected to the movable part (the elbow section of rigid body 71).”
Regarding claim 4, Kahrobaiyan discloses “two consecutive translation stages are arranged head-to-tail relative to one another (fig. 19, the ‘output’ end of the second rigid body (75) is connected to the ‘input’ end of first rigid body (71)).”
Regarding claim 5, Kahrobaiyan discloses “an even number of translation stages (fig. 19, there are two translation stages (74, 75) comprising the prestressing means (6)).”
Regarding claim 6, Kahrobaiyan discloses “the rigid sections are lengthened so that the next translation stage can be associated therewith (fig. 19, each rigid body has an elongated (“lengthened”) portion carrying the attachment to the other rigid body).”
Regarding claim 11, Kahrobaiyan discloses “each rigid section of a translation stage extends beyond the pair of flexible blades of said translation stage (fig. 19, the rigid portions (71, 75) of the translation stages extend beyond the flexible blades).”
Regarding claim 12, Kahrobaiyan discloses “the spring part is arranged under the stationary part (fig. 19 shows the shows the spring part being ‘under’ the stationary part if viewed with the stationary part as the ‘top’ of the device).”
Regarding claim 13, Kahrobaiyan discloses “the flexible blades of the translation stages of the spring part are substantially parallel when the actuator is in the rest position (fig. 19, the groups of blades (72 and 74) are arranged in sets which are parallel blade-to-blade as well as set-to-set).”
Regarding claim 14, Kahrobaiyan discloses “the movable part (para. [0093], “first rigid body”; fig. 19, element 71) comprises a hook (the perpendicular section of first rigid body (71)).”
Regarding claim 16, Kahrobaiyan discloses “A horological movement, comprising the actuation system (para. [0038], "The invention also relates to a rotary resonator mechanism, in particular for a horological movement" the prestressing means (6) being a component of the “rotary resonator mechanism”) according to claim 1.”
Regarding claim 17, Kahrobaiyan (para. [0011] discloses “A timepiece, comprising the horological movement according to claim 16.”
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan.
Regarding claim 3, Kahrobaiyan discloses the actuation system according to claim 2. Kahrobaiyan fails to specifically disclose “each translation stage comprises a pair of substantially parallel flexible blades and a rigid section on which the pair of flexible blades is mounted”.
In an alternative embodiment, Kahrobaiyan teaches “each translation stage comprises a pair of substantially parallel flexible blades and a rigid section on which the pair of flexible blades is mounted (para. [0079], “The translation table comprises at least one secondary flexible blade, here two secondary flexible blades 21, 22, and a rigid part 23.”; fig. 4, elements 21-23).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prestressing means of Kahrobaiyan having four parallel flexible blades with the translation stage having two parallel blades according to known methods to yield the predictable result of obtaining a translation stage with two parallel blades coupled to a rigid section.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan in view of Winkler (EP 3561607, hereinafter Winkler).
Regarding claim 7, Kahrobaiyan discloses the actuation system according to claim 2. Kahrobaiyan fails to specifically disclose “at least the spring part is defined substantially in a plane so as to be substantially flat.” However, Winkler teaches “at least the spring part (fig. 3, elements 310 and 320) is defined substantially in a plane so as to be substantially flat (the flexible blades (310 and 320) are contained within the plane of “intermediate masses”, fig. 3, elements 303 and 305, thus are “substantially flat”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prestressing means of Kahrobaiyan with the translation tables with flexible legs with the predictable result of creating a compact, flat component.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan in view of Di Domenico (EP 3435172, hereinafter Di Domenico).
Regarding claim 15, Kahrobaiyan discloses the actuation system according to claim 1. However Kahrobaiyan fails to disclose “the actuator is made in one-piece, with the actuator being obtained by a LIGA or DRIE process.”
Di Domenico does not specifically teach “the actuator is made in one-piece, with the actuator being obtained by a LIGA or DRIE process.” However, Di Domenico (‘Background of the invention’, para. [0003]) teaches that the manufacture of complex horological components using LIGA is well known in the art. Specifically, Di Domenico teaches “The use of flexible guides, particularly with flexible blades, in mechanical watch oscillators, is made possible by manufacturing processes, such as "MEMS", "LIGA" or similar, of micro-machinable materials, such as silicon and its oxides, which allow for highly reproducible manufacturing of components that exhibit constant elastic characteristics over time and high insensitivity to external agents such as temperature and humidity.” Di Domenico further teaches the manufacture of complex horological components, including flexure components, in a single piece by the DRIE method, stating (para. [0067]):
“A suitable manufacturing process consists of performing the following operations for the different types of pivots below:
For a pivot type AABB:
a. use a substrate with at least four layers, resulting for example but not limited to the assembly of two SOI wafers;
b. Engrave using the "DRIE" engraving process on the front face to obtain AA, including engraving both layers in one piece;
c. Engrave by "DRIE" engraving process on the back face to obtain BB, including engraving both layers in one piece;
d. Perform partial separation of the four layers by etching the buried oxide.
The high precision of the "DRIE" process, i.e. Deep Reactive Ion Etching (DRIE), guarantees very good positioning and alignment accuracy, less than or equal to 5 micrometers, thanks to optical alignment, which ensures very good face-to-face alignment. Naturally, equivalent processes can be implemented depending on the material chosen.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prestressing means of Kahrobaiyan with the well-known LIGA and/or DRIE methods and flexible pivot blades manufactured in one piece of Di Domenico with the predictable result of obtaining long-lasting, high-precision flexible guide components for timepieces while reducing manufacturing costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the 112 rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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.
/MICHAEL JAMES WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights