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 11 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 11 recites the limitation "the guide rod" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should claim 11 depend from claim 10 instead of claim 1?
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howald, US 6,014,793.
Regarding claim 1, Howald discloses a device [for locking a clasp], which device comprises a push-piece (35) [which can move translatably in a support structure (31a) between a rest position (figure 7) in which it is intended to prevent the clasp from opening and an active position (free to open; figure 9) in which it is intended to no longer prevent the opening of the clasp], the locking device being characterised in that it includes a blocking member (35c) for blocking the push-piece (35), which member (35c) is configured to occupy a locking state in which it immobilises the push-piece (35) in the rest position, and an unlocking state in which it releases the push-piece (35) translatably, the push-piece (35) is connected to the support structure (31a) via a locking rod (33), the blocking member (35c) comprising a cam (inclined surface under 35c and abutting head 34 of the rod 33 in figure 9) that is capable of moving (with) relative to the push-piece (35) so as to constitute an abutment for the locking rod (33; figure 9) when the blocking member (35c) occupies the locking state (when 35c is aligned with 37a), and so as to move out of the path of the locking rod (33) when the blocking member (35c) occupies the unlocking state (when 35c misaligned with 37a).
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the device for a clasp, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the device for a link disclosed by Howald (US 6,014,793), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Howald discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the cam (surface under 35c) is rotatable (within 31a) and has a cam profile (see figures 7 and 9) against which the locking rod (33) abuts (at 34) when the push-piece (35) is urged from its rest position and when the blocking member (35c) occupies the locking state (when 35c is aligned with 37a), said cam (surface under 35c) being provided with a radial notch (see figure 9 where 34 abuts said notch) in which the locking rod (33) engages when the push-piece (35) is in the active position and when the blocking member (35c) occupies the unlocking state.
Regarding claim 3, Howald discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the cam profile (surface under 35c; figures 7 and 9) has a radial recess (under 35c), the shape of which matches that of the end (34) of the locking rod (33), so as to prevent rotation of the cam (surface under 35c) when the push-piece (35) is urged from its rest position and when the blocking member (33) is in the locking state.
Regarding claim 10, Howald discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the push-piece (35) is biased to move towards its rest position by a spring (36) and includes at least one guide rod (for the spring 36; see solid line below 35 outlining a rod in figure 7 with the spring surrounding the rod) slidingly engaged in the support structure (31a), the latter further including at least one guide rod (under 35) slidingly engaged (when pushed downward against the spring) in the push-piece (35).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Howald discloses the locking device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the guide rod (for the spring 36; see solid line below 35 outlining a rod in figure 7 with the spring surrounding the rod) slidably engaged in the support structure (31a) has an axial abutment (on 35) configured to rest against the support structure (31a) when the push-piece (35) is in the rest position.
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howald, US 6,014,793 in view of Riotte, US 2021/0393004.
Regarding claim 12, Howald discloses the locking device according to claim 1. Howald does not explicitly disclose a folding clasp of a watch or a piece of jewellery (a bracelet), comprising at least two blades connected to each other so as to be able to move rotatably, and the locking device according to claim 1, the support structure of which is formed by one of the blades of the clasp.
Riotte discloses a folding clasp for a watch comprising two blades (4, 5) connected to each other so as to be able to move rotatably (about an axis of the blades) and a locking device (10) that locks or unlocks the first blade relative to the second blade in the closed and open configurations. The support structure of the locking device is formed by one of the blades of the clasp.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Howald’s locking device (as according to claim 1 above) into the folding clasp of Riotte, with the support structure of Howald’s locking device formed by one of Riotte’s blades in order to prevent inadvertent opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 - 9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 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, 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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights