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 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contests that the prior art does not disclose the claim limitations in light of the amendment. The examiner does not entirely agree to the degree with which applicant makes this assertion. None the less a change to the grounds of rejection are warranted. The new grounds of rejection are thus the best response thereto. More specifically Hembo doesn’t teach an elongate channel eyelet. To the extent to which Hembo’s shapes are or aren’t consistent with the claim language “has an angle or curvature that matches an angle or curvature of the watch housing” is open to some level of debate. None the less an updated search identified substantial prior art. The prior art shows a general consideration of the aesthetic value of consistent shaping of the joining surfaces such that a new grounds of rejection is the best response to the amendment.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hembo (US 2015/0055440) in view of Tsung (US D918743), Gonet (US D902745), and Kuchler (US D573900) and Tomchin (US 1382256).
With regard to claim 1 Hembo discloses a watch (title) for time measurement (see hands and indicia figure 3), said watch comprising: a watch housing (2 figure 3) for housing a time measuring unit (figure 3 shows a watch case with watch parts), a connecting element (12) attached to the watch housing (2), a lanyard (10) connected to the connecting element (12) for wearing around a neck of a user (the structure is capable of being worn about a neck.), and an adjusting element (26) engaged with the lanyard (10), wherein the adjustment element is configured to adjust a loop size of the lanyard surrounding the neck (figure 1). the connecting element either including or defining an eyelet (16 figures 5 and 6)
PNG
media_image1.png
551
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And the lanyard connected to the eyelet (figures 1-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
466
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant arguments 6/22/26 page 6 asserts that the prior art (including Hembo) does not teach the claim language: wherein the eyelet is an elongated channel extending between two opposing ends of the connecting element wherein each opposing end has an angle or curvature that matches an angle or curvature of the watch housing from which the opposing ends extend such that the opposing ends of the connecting elements follows the angle or curvature of the watch house.
Tsung D918743 teaches a continuous watch band such that wherein the eyelet is an elongated channel extending between two opposing ends of the connecting element wherein each opposing end has an angle or curvature that matches an angle or curvature of the watch housing from which the opposing ends extend such that the opposing ends of the connecting elements follows the angle or curvature of the watch house.
PNG
media_image4.png
198
575
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gonet teaches a watch band such that element wherein each opposing end has an angle or curvature that matches an angle or curvature of the watch housing from which the opposing ends extend such that the opposing ends of the connecting elements follows the angle or curvature of the watch house.
PNG
media_image5.png
698
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kuchler teaches a continuous watch band such that wherein the eyelet is an elongated channel extending between two opposing ends of the connecting element wherein each opposing end has an angle or curvature that matches an angle or curvature of the watch housing from which the opposing ends extend such that the opposing ends of the connecting elements follows the angle or curvature of the watch house.
PNG
media_image6.png
503
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The circles demark eyelets.
Tomchin teaches eyelet is an elongated channel extending between two opposing ends of the connecting element wherein each opposing end – figure 1.
It 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 to configure Hembo’s system such that wherein the eyelet is an elongated channel extending between two opposing ends of the connecting element wherein each opposing end has an angle or curvature that matches an angle or curvature of the watch housing from which the opposing ends extend such that the opposing ends of the connecting elements follows the angle or curvature of the watch house, as taught by Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler. The reason for doing so would have been to achieve unique aesthetic considerations as taught by Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler, while improving the function and purpose of the watch case and strap mounting allowing for a smooth transition to prevent the snag or catching or loose articles or clothing there against.
Unless stated otherwise citations and numerals pertain to base reference Hembo.
With regard to claim 2 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting element is frictionally mounted to the lanyard (figures 1, 2, 3, show an engaging surface of the cord touching the through hole of 12, thus friction forces would be in play in the engagement).
With regard to claim 3 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting element (26) embraces two strap sections of the lanyard arranged next to each other (figure 3).
With regard to claim 5 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein the adjusting element is part of a zipper formed by way of the lanyard (figures 1, 2)
With regard to claim 6 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element is hingedly connected to the watch housing (by way of 6, 8 figure 3).
With regard to claim 9 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein a width of the watch case tapers towards the connecting element (figure 3) and the connecting element is laterally beveled and/or curved to match a shape of the watch case (figure 3; see also the modification of claim 1).
With regard to claim 10 (depends from claim 1) Hembo does not disclose wherein the lanyard is a flat strap
Tomchin teaches a flat lanyard (N figure 1).
It 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 to configure Hembo’s system such that the lanyard is a flat strap, as taught by Tomchin. The reason for doing so would have been to match the lanyard to the hole of the modification of claim 1. A reason for doing so would have been to use a lanyard with a larger surface area thus reducing the force applied to local areas.
With regard to claim 11 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein the eyelet extends between a first opening disposed on a front facing surface of the connecting element and a second opening that is disposed on a rear facing surface of the connecting element (Tomchin figure 1, Tsung figure 1, and Kuchler figures 1 and 2)
With regard to claim 12 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 11, wherein an axis passing through the first and second openings is oriented parallel to a central axis of a clock of the time measuring unit (Tomchin figure 1, Tsung figure 1, and Kuchler figures 1 and 2)
With regard to claim 13 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 1, wherein the elongated channel of the eyelet extends along a horizontal direction that is orthogonal to a central axis of a clock of the time measuring unit
With regard to claim 14 Hembo, Tomchin, Tsung, Gonet, and Kuchler teach the watch according to claim 13, wherein the connecting element is hingedly connected to the watch housing about the horizontal direction (Hembo figure 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the hinge as well as different orientations of the rotational body. Transition from the left to right to a top to bottom eyelet doesn’t affect the operation of the hinge. Kuchler, Gonet, Tsung each teach flexible or pivoting straps relative to the body to facilitate attachment around a wrist without negatively impacting the alignment of the watchcase body to the strap in a continuous fashion.)
15 depends from claim 1: Hembo may visually imply the claimed: wherein the connecting element and the watch housing are composed of a same material.But there is no apparent express teaching that the connecting element is made of the same material. Hembo only discusses the material of the strap. Tsung teaches a one body structure.
It 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 to configure Hembo’s connecting element and the watch housing are composed of a same material. The reason for doing so would have been to make the structures from common and normal materials such as metal, or stainless steel. The visual aesthetic of a continuous strap would be desirable to combine with a continuous appearance of the material as well. Use of the same metal would be desirable for resilience and resistance to environmental damage and wear.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hembo (US 2015/0055440) in view of Tsung (US D918743), Gonet (US D902745), and Kuchler (US D573900), and Tomchin (US 1382256) in further view of Yang (US 2012/0224461).
With regard to claim 7 (depends from claim 1) Hembo does not disclose the claimed: connecting element is composed of titanium and/or a titanium alloy and/or is coated.Yang teaches (paragraph 29) the outside surface of the chambers 110, 130 may be provided with a suitable coating such as a thin rubber coating in order to enhance durability and water resistance.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Hembo’s system to comprise: connecting element is composed of titanium and/or a titanium alloy and/or is coated, as taught in part by Yang. The reasons for doing so would have been to use a strong lightweight material to form the structure, to use an alloy with desirable material properties to form the connecting element, to use a lightweight strong material to reduce weight of the resulting structure. A reason for doing so would have been to form a coating to improve the feel and surface of the element, as taught by Yang.
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 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
Prosecution Insights