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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295).
Regarding claim 1, co-pending claim 1 includes all the recited limitations except for the escapement device being characterized in that the first blocking surface portion is arranged so that a first force, exerted on the blocking mobile element by the first escapement mobile element blocked by the first blocking surface portion, passes substantially in the vicinity of the fourth axis of rotation, in particular passes through the fourth axis of rotation, and in that the second blocking surface portion is arranged so that a second force, exerted on the blocking mobile element by the second escapement mobile element blocked by the second blocking surface portion, passes substantially in the vicinity of the fourth axis of rotation, in particular passes through the fourth axis of rotation.
Oechslin ‘295 teaches (Figs. 1, 7-8) an escapement device characterized in that a first blocking surface portion (14) is arranged so that a first force, exerted on a blocking mobile element (5) by a first escapement mobile element (3) blocked by the first blocking surface portion (14), passes through a fourth axis of rotation (R2 in Fig. 8 and [0020]), and in that a second blocking surface portion (14) is arranged so that a second force, exerted on the blocking mobile element (5) by a second escapement mobile element (4) blocked by a second blocking surface portion (14), passes substantially in the vicinity of the fourth axis of rotation, in particular passes through the fourth axis of rotation (R2, [0020], and [0031]; the two forces are vertically symmetric).
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 the escapement device of co-pending 18/770,655 so that first and second forces pass through the fourth axis of rotation as taught by Oechslin ‘295. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known forcing arrangement for successfully and predictably regulating a timepiece.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations.
Claims 6-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations except for semantic differences.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations except for semantic differences.
Claims 9-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-8, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations.
Claims 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-15, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/770,655 in view of Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295) because the reference application recites the same limitations.
Claim 1 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/770,655 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application recites the same limitations.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the phrase “in the vicinity” on page 2, lines 7 and 13 lacks antecedent basis and is a subjective term of relative degree. What is considered “the vicinity” is not specified, and persons of ordinary skill may have different opinions on what they consider near enough to be “the vicinity.” The limitations “passes in the vicinity of the fourth axis” in lines 7-8 and 13 are suggested to be -passes through the fourth axis-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5-7, 9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oechslin ‘295 (US 20020088295).
Regarding claim 1, Oechslin ‘295 teaches (Figs. 1, 7-8) an escapement device for a timepiece movement (title), comprising:
a first escapement mobile element (3), pivotally mounted about a first axis of rotation (central axis of 3), arranged to be engaged with a train (30) of the timepiece movement ([0011), to receive a motive force ([0011]), and comprising a plurality of first blocking surfaces (17) and a first drive toothing (8),
a second escapement mobile element (4), pivotally mounted about a second axis of rotation (central axis of 4), comprising a plurality of second blocking surfaces (17) and a second drive toothing (10) engaged with the first drive toothing (Fig. 1) to transmit the motive force of the first escapement mobile element to the second escapement mobile element ([0011]),
an inertial element (2), pivotally mounted about a third axis of rotation (central axis of 2), arranged to present oscillations each comprising a first vibration (M in Fig. 6) and a second vibration (E in Fig. 1),
a blocking mobile element (5), pivotally mounted about a fourth axis of rotation (central axis of 6), comprising:
a first blocking surface portion (14), arranged to come into contact (Fig. 8) with one of the plurality of first blocking surfaces (17) in order to block the rotation of the first escapement mobile element (Fig. 8 and [0020]),
a second blocking surface portion (14), arranged to come into contact (Fig. 4) with one of the plurality of second blocking surfaces (17) in order to block the rotation of the second escapement mobile element (Fig. 1 and [0020]),
an impulse receiver (19), arranged to receive a first impulse ([0031]) from the first escapement mobile element during a first vibration (M) of an oscillation of the inertial element, and to receive a second impulse (Fig. 7 and [0027]) from the second escapement mobile element during a second vibration (E) of said oscillation of the inertial element,
an impulse transmitter (11-12), arranged to transmit at least part of the first impulse or of the second impulse to the inertial element,
characterized in that the first blocking surface portion (14) is arranged so that a first force, exerted on the blocking mobile element (5) by the first escapement mobile element (3) blocked by the first blocking surface portion (14), passes through the fourth axis of rotation (Fig. 8: the first force is directed from the contact point between 17 of 3 and 5 to the center axis 15), and in that the second blocking surface portion (14) is arranged so that a second force, exerted on the blocking mobile element (5) by the second escapement mobile element (4) blocked by the second blocking surface portion (14), passes substantially in the vicinity of the fourth axis of rotation, in particular passes through the fourth axis of rotation (in a manner symmetric to Fig. 8, the second force is directed from the contact point between 17 of 4 and 5 to the center axis 15; see also [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Oechslin ‘295 teaches (Figs. 1, 7-8) the escapement device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first blocking surfaces (17) and the first drive toothing (8) form a first main drive toothing (8), the plurality of second blocking surfaces (17) and the second drive toothing (10) form a second main drive toothing (10), wherein the second main drive toothing is engaged with the first main drive toothing (Fig. 1) to transmit the motive force (generated by 30) from the first escapement mobile element (3) to the second escapement mobile element (4) in a given plane (plane of elements 3-4), and wherein the first main drive toothing (8) and the second main drive toothing (10) are arranged to cooperate with the blocking mobile element (5) in the same plane (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Oechslin ‘295 teaches (Figs. 1, 7-8) the escapement device according to claim 5, wherein: the first escapement mobile element (3) comprises a plurality of first blocking teeth (8) each comprising a first blocking surface of the plurality of first blocking surfaces (17), the first blocking teeth being asymmetrical (Fig. 1), the second escapement mobile element comprises a plurality of second blocking teeth (10) each comprising a second blocking surface of the plurality of second blocking surfaces (17), the second blocking teeth being asymmetrical (Fig. 1), and wherein each of the first blocking teeth (8) is arranged to cooperate with the second drive toothing (10) and/or wherein each of the second blocking teeth (10) is arranged to cooperate with the first drive toothing (8) to transmit the motive force (generated by 30) from the first escapement mobile element (3) to the second escapement mobile element (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Oechslin ‘295 teaches (Figs. 1, 7-8) the escapement device according to claim 1, wherein: the first escapement mobile element (3) comprises a plurality of first blocking teeth (8) each comprising a first blocking surface of the plurality of first blocking surfaces (17), the second escapement mobile element (4) comprises a plurality of second blocking teeth (10) each comprising a second blocking surface of the plurality of second blocking surfaces (17), and wherein the first blocking teeth and the second blocking teeth are asymmetrical (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Oechslin ‘295 teaches (Figs. 7-8) the escapement device according to claim 2, wherein: the impulse receiver (7, 9) of the blocking mobile element comprises: a first impulse input portion (7), arranged to receive the first impulse from the first escapement mobile element (3) during the first vibration (M) of the inertial element (Fig. 1), a second impulse input portion (9), arranged to receive the second impulse from the second escapement mobile element (4) during the second vibration (E) of the inertial element (Fig. 7), wherein: the first impulse input portion (7) is adjacent to the first blocking surface portion (14), and the second impulse input portion (9) is adjacent to the second blocking surface portion (14), and/or: the first impulse input portion (7) is separated from the first blocking surface portion (14) by a first rest beak (left edge 19), and the second impulse input portion (9) is separated from the second blocking surface portion (14) by a second rest beak (right edge 19).
Regarding claim 14, Oechslin ‘295 teaches the escapement device according to claim 1, wherein: the first escapement mobile element forms or comprises a first escapement wheel (3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Oechslin ‘295 teaches a timepiece comprising the escapement device according to claim 1 (title).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oechslin ‘295 in view of Hisashi (JP 2015169520).
Regarding claim 4, Oechslin ‘295 discloses the escapement device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first blocking surfaces (17) and the plurality of second blocking surfaces (17) are arranged to cooperate with the blocking mobile element (5) in a first plane (the plane where 17 and 5 mesh), and the first drive toothing (8) is arranged to cooperate with the second drive toothing (10) in a second plane (where 8 and 10 mesh), parallel to the first plane (the two planes are coplanar), to transmit the motive force (generated by 30) from the first escapement mobile element (3) to the second escapement mobile element (4).
Oechslin ‘295 does not show the first and second planes being parallel but distinct.
Hisashi teaches (Figs. 1, 3) a plurality of first blocking surfaces (16) and second blocking surfaces (26) arranged to cooperate with a blocking mobile element (40) in a first plane (where 16 and 26 mesh with 40), and a first drive toothing (11) arranged to cooperate with a second drive toothing (21) in a second plane (where 11 and 21 mesh) parallel and distinct from the first plane (11 and 21 are coaxial with 16 and 26, respectively; they therefore extend across parallel and distinct planes) to transmit a motive force (generated by 111) from a first escapement mobile element (10) to a second escapement mobile element (20).
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 Oechslin ‘295’s first and second escapement mobile elements for Hisashi’s first and second escapement mobile elements comprising blocking surfaces and drive toothings in parallel and distinct planes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known solution for power transmission and blocking that predictably and reliably regulates a timepiece.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oechslin ‘295 in view of Oechslin ‘981 (US 6301981).
Regarding claim 8, Oechslin ‘295 discloses the escapement device according to claim 6.
Oechslin ‘295 does not show the first escapement mobile element and/or the second escapement mobile element comprising respectively between 3 and 8 first blocking teeth and between 3 and 8 second blocking teeth.
Oechslin ‘981 teaches (Fig. 1) a first escapement mobile element (6) and a second escapement mobile element (7) comprising respectively between 3 and 8 first blocking teeth (13) and between 3 and 8 second blocking teeth (14). Column 3, lines 6-8 and 24-27 teach five first blocking teeth and five second blocking teeth.
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 Oechslin ‘295’s first and second blocking teeth to each number between 3 and 8, as taught by Oechslin ‘981. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known number of blocking teeth that predictably creates a functional escapement for regulating time.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oechslin ‘295 in view of Oechslin ‘046 (US 20040013046).
Regarding claims 10-11, Oechslin ‘295 discloses the escapement device according to claim 9, wherein a third straight line passing through a fourth axis of rotation (axis of 6) and through a point of contact between the first escapement mobile element (3) and the first impulse input portion7) during a first impulse phase (Fig. 1), and a fourth straight line passing through the fourth axis of rotation and through a point of contact between the second escapement mobile element (4) and the second impulse input portion (9) during a second impulse phase (Fig. 7), define an angle γ therebetween. The two points of contact inherently define an angle therebetween.
Oechslin ‘295 is silent regarding the angle γ being acute and between 50 and 70 degrees.
Oechslin ‘046 teaches (Fig. 2) a third straight line passing through a fourth axis of rotation (axis of 6) and through a point of contact between a first escapement mobile element (3) and a first impulse input portion during a first impulse phase, and a fourth straight line passing through the fourth axis of rotation and through a point of contact between a second escapement mobile element (4) and a second impulse input portion during a second impulse phase, defining an acute angle γ (a) between 50 and 70 degrees therebetween ([0029]).
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 the shape of Oechslin ‘295’s impulse receiver such that the two points of contact form an acute angle between 50 and 70 degrees, as taught by Oechslin ‘046. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a known impulse receiver shape that reliably and predictably blocks and transmits motive forces to regulate a timepiece.
Regarding claim 12, Oechslin ‘295 in view of Oechslin ‘046 discloses the escapement device according to claim 10, wherein the angle γ is smaller than an angle α; the angle α is undefined and arbitrary, so let α be 359 degrees.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 202 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Oechslin ‘295 does not show a first or second force exerted on the blocking mobile element by the first escapement mobile element passing in the vicinity of the fourth axis of rotation because R2 in Fig. 8 of Oechslin ‘295 is only a radius of curvature, not a force arrow. However, because R2 = R1 ([0020] of Oechslin ‘295), when locking face 17 locks the blocking mobile element 6 as seen in Fig. 8, the direction of force applied by 17 to 5 overlaps the arrow R2. That is, the applied force is directed from the contact point between 17 and 5 to the central axis 15 of 6. As such, the first and second forces pass through the fourth axis of rotation. The office action mailed 2026-05-12 cited R2 to indicate that the direction of applied force is along line R2 in Fig. 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding
claim 13, Beugin et al. (US 20230251604) discloses flat blocking surfaces (48a-48b in Fig. 1), and Zaugg discloses blocking surfaces that form convex obtuse angles (34, 36 in Fig. 1). The prior art does not show or suggest concave blocking surfaces forming a “V” or “U,” in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 9:30-5:30 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
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights