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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the proposed combination under 35 USC 103 fails to teach or suggest the claimed hook limitation because Kahrobaiyan does not teach a hook. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant asserts that the proposed combination under 35 USC 103 fails to teach or suggest the claimed hook limitation because Meitinger does not cure the deficiency of Kahrobaiyan. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Meitinger teaches a variation on a very common design where a hook is used to adjust the stiffness of the balance spring. Meithlinger column 2 lines 20-27 “The regulator arm 3 is in conventional manner rotatably mounted on bearing 5 and provides the opportunity to vary the effective length of hair spring 1 and thus the oscillation frequency of the balance.”
Applicant asserts that the proposed combination under 35 USC 103 fails to teach or suggest the claimed hook limitation because Meitinger does not cure the deficiency of Kahrobaiyan because hook 13 holds the end. This argument is not persuasive. This is why 35 USC 103 requires consideration as a whole, not piecemeal analysis. Meitinger shows that even if held at a terminal end it is still common to use a hook to adjust the operational length.
Applicant argues that the hook is element 13 is a static clamping mechanism for securing the hair spring to the end of the frame. It is not part of the movable actuator. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner sees no part of the claim which requires the entire actuator to move, to be integrally formed, or to be one piece. The claim recites an actuator includes a hook engaged with the balance spring. The displacement of the actuator making it possible to modify the stiffness of the balance spring. Applicant could have claimed displacement of the hook, but didn’t. The system taught by Meitinger includes an adjustable element 6 which reasonably reads on the term hook. The system taught by Meitinger includes a part referenced expressly as a hook 13. This hook 13 is part of an actuator system which moves to adjust the stiffness as claimed. The examiner’s position is that element 6 is sufficient to render the issue obvious. The examiner’s position is that 6 and 13 are also and separately also able to render the invention obvious. More importantly when considered as a whole the claimed invention is obvious.
Applicant appears to regard 13 as the only hook in Meithinger. This argument is not persuasive. The grounds of rejection says 6 or 13. 6 is also reasonably a hook in the context of the prior art and the claim(s).Applicant challenges the motivation to combine. This argument is not persuasive. The reason for making an adjustable hook structure is precisely that, to make it adjustable as is common and well known in the art. See the rejection of record: to provide a structure capable of quick adjustments of the spring.Applicant states In fact, it is not clear how it would be possible to incorporate a hook in Kahrobaiyan to cause movement of the lever 124. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection addresses the limitation as recited properly and in full. The fixation on small details does not detract from consideration of the invention as a whole. The grounds of rejection 5/14/2026 refers to an actuator includes a something (here reference numeral 124 is cited) engaged with the balance spring. The grounds of rejection expressly state that the base reference doesn’t teach the claimed hook. That is the entire purpose of citing an additional reference and making a 103 modification. At no point did the ground of rejection state that the intention was to cause element 124 to move as asserted by applicant.
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 1-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan (US 2022/0171336) in view of Meitinger (US 3872663).
With regard to claim 1 Kahrobaiyan discloses a regulating member (title) for a horological movement, comprising an inertial mass, a balance spring (2; paragraphs 3, 8) comprising a ribbon (2) wound in a plurality of coils (2 figures 1-29), the regulating member including an actuation system for adjusting the rate of the regulating member (title), the actuation system comprising an actuator (5, 6; abstract) mechanically connected to the balance spring (2; paragraphs 3, 8), the displacement of the actuator making it possible to modify the rate of the regulating member (claims 1, 12; paragraphs 8-13, 15), wherein the actuator (5, 6; abstract) includes a something (124; paragraphs 106-107) engaged with the balance spring (2; paragraphs 3, 8), the displacement of the actuator (5, 6; abstract) making it possible to modify the stiffness of the balance spring (2; abstract, paragraphs 3, 8).
Kahrobaiyan does not specifically detail the something engaged with the balance spring is a hook.
See paragraphs 106-107 regarding the adjusting of the lever 124 figure 29.
The use of a hook adjusting portion 6 figure 2 or a hook end holding portion (claim 1) are well known in the art. The use of hook structures is routine and ordinary.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Kahrobaiyan’s system to comprise a hook engaged with the balance spring, as taught at least in part by Meitinger. The reason for doing so would have been to provide an attaching means to the end as well as to provide a structure capable of quick adjustments of the spring for both insertion/removal and beat, as taught by Meitinger.
With regard to claim 2 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member (title) according to claim 1, wherein the balance spring (2; paragraphs 3, 8) comprises means for adjusting the stiffness of the balance spring (2; paragraphs 3, 8), the adjustment means being provided with a flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well) arranged in series with the wound ribbon (2), the adjustment means comprising prestressing means (5, 6; abstract) for applying a variable force or torque to the flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well) in order to change the stiffness of the flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well) to adjust the rate of the regulating member (title), the actuator (5, 6; abstract) being mechanically connected to the prestressing means (5, 6; abstract; paragraphs 13-15).
With regard to claim 3 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 2, wherein the prestressing means (5, 6; abstract) include a lever (124 figure 29) connected to the flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well), actuation of the lever (124 figure 29) enabling the variable force or torque applied to the flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well) to be varied (abstract, figure 29, paragraphs 106-107)
With regard to claim 4 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 3, wherein the hook (124; paragraphs 106-107) is engaged with the lever (124 figure 29) to allow it to be displaced when actuated (abstract, figure 29)
With regard to claim 5 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 4, wherein the lever (124 figure 29) is movable in the hook (124; paragraphs 106-107), so that it can slide when the lever (124 figure 29) performs an angular displacement (see arrows figure 29 as well as the other embodiments).
With regard to claim 6 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 4, wherein the hook (124; paragraphs 106-107) surrounds the lever (124 figure 29) to form a closed contour (Meitinger figure 2).
With regard to claim 7 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 1, wherein the actuator (5, 6; abstract) is configured to perform at least in part a substantially linear, preferably rectilinear, displacement, in order to actuate the prestressing means (5, 6; abstract; figures claims 1, 12-18).
With regard to claim 8 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 1, wherein the actuator (5, 6; abstract) is eccentric relative to the regulating member (title) and mounted at a distance from the centre of the regulating member (title; figure 29).
With regard to claim 9 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 1, wherein the actuator (5, 6; abstract) comprises a part (117 figure 29) that is stationary relative to the balance bridge (paragraphs 70, 104, 107-108), a spring part (51, 52, 119 figure 29) and a part (4 and/or 124) that is movable thanks to the spring part (51, 52, and/or 119), the movable part (125 and associated retention element. See 103 modification.) comprising the hook (124; paragraphs 106-107; see 103 modification).Kahrobaiyan does not specifically detail a stationary balance bridge.Meitinger details a balance bridge 2 figure 1, column 2 lines 19-27.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Kahrobaiyan’s system with a balance bridge such that actuator comprises a part that is stationary relative to the balance bridge, a spring part and a part that is movable thanks to the spring part, the movable part comprising the hook, as taught in part by Meitinger. The reason for doing so would have been to provide structural support to the components to allow them to function as disclosed. Another reason for doing so would have been to allow the system to be assembled in parts rather than as one solid element including incremental structural elements as per the common purpose and function of a balance bridge.
With regard to claim 10 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 3, wherein the movable part (37) can move orthogonally to the direction of the lever (124 figure 29).
With regard to claim 11 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach the regulating member according to claim 2, further comprising a stud-holder (see 117 figure 29; paragraphs 70, 104, 107-108) mechanically connected to the flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well), the stud-holder (31) including a stud (117) on which the flexible element (51, 52, 119 figure 29; 119 figures 26-28; see the other embodiments as well) is mounted (figure 29; paragraphs 70, 104, 107-108).
With regard to claim 13 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach a horological movement, comprising the regulating member (title) according to claim 1 (Claim 19 – Kahrobaiyan).
With regard to claim 14 Kahrobaiyan and Meitinger teach a timepiece comprising the horological movement according to claim 13 (Claim 19 and paragraph 11 – Kahrobaiyan).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahrobaiyan (US 2022/0171336) in view of Meitinger (US 3872663) in view of Peters (US 7293913), Courvoisier (US 9176475), and Christan (US 11073796).
With regard to claim 12 (depends from claim 11) Kahrobaiyan does not disclose the claimed: wherein the stud-holder can rotate relative to the balance bridge in order to regulate the beat of the regulating member.
Meitinger teaches this concept, but not separate from the concept of the hook. Note, however, how Kahrobaiyan has two such attachment points 125 and 117. Peters teaches a position adjustment by adjusting the position of a stud – abstract, figure 1, claim 1.
Courvoisier teaches a position adjustment by adjusting the position of a stud – abstract, figure 1, claim 1.
Christan teaches a position adjustment by adjusting the position of a stud – abstract, figure 1, claim 1.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Kahrobaiyan’s system with a stud-holder can rotate relative to the balance bridge in order to regulate the beat of the regulating member, as taught by Meitinger, Peters, Courvoisier, and Christan. The reason for doing so would have been to allow greater control of the angular position and to adjust the beats of the balance spring through coarse and fine adjustments using known and common solutions to that problem.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN KAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-8931. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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.
/SEAN KAYES/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
