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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (JP 2018087766) in view of Vuilleumier (US 5282179).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sugimoto discloses (Figs. 3, 5) an electronic device/timepiece (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a base (125) including: a first mounting part that includes a main surface provided in an annular shape (see image below); a second mounting part that is provided at an inner side of the first mounting part and includes a main surface (see image below) and a raised part (see image below) raised upward in a thickness direction of the base; and a third mounting part (126, and below image) that is provided around the first mounting part, wherein the main surface of the second mounting part and the raised part are both lower than a main surface of the third mounting part and higher than the main surface of the first mounting part (see image below); and a solar panel (135), wherein the solar panel is provided above the main surface of the first mounting apart (135 is at a higher level than the main surface of the 1st part).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugimoto also discloses a calendar disk (15 in Fig. 2).
Sugimoto does not show the disk being annular and having a thickness smaller than a difference between a height of the raised part of the second mounting part and a height of the main surface of the third mounting part and includes an inner peripheral side partly disposed on the second mounting part.
Vuillleumier teaches an annular calendar disk (28 in Figs. 3-4) having a thickness smaller than a difference between a height of a raised part of a second mounting part and a height of a main surface of a third mounting part and includes an inner peripheral side partly disposed on the second mounting part. See image below.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Sugimoto’s calendar disk to be annular, have a thickness smaller than a difference between a height of the raised part of the second mounting part and a height of the main surface of the third mounting part, and include an inner peripheral side partly disposed on the second mounting part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known arrangement for predictably increasing free space in the device and improving the spatial arrangement of device components.
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto discloses (Figs. 5, 9) the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the main surface of the third mounting part (126) includes an arc-shaped surface or an annular-shaped surface (Figs. 2-3: the device has an overall annular-shaped surface), and the electronic device further comprises an outer peripheral frame (115) that is disposed along at least a portion of the third mounting part of the base (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Sugimoto discloses (Figs. 9-11) the electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the outer peripheral frame (115) includes a first lower surface (see image below) that is provided in a lower portion on an outer peripheral side in the thickness direction and is in contact (Fig. 11) with the main surface of the third mounting part (126), and a second lower surface (115a) that is provided on an inner peripheral side of the first lower surface (see image below) and is at a higher level than at least a portion of the first lower surface (Figs. 9-11).
PNG
media_image3.png
503
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Sugimoto in view of Vuilleumier discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the raised part (see claim 1’s rejection’s annotated image) includes an arc-shaped surface (Figs. 2-3 of Sugimoto: the device’s components confer to the device an overall curved, i.e. arc-shaped, surface), and the electronic device further comprises a calendar disk holder (30 in Figs. 3-4 of Vuilleumier) that is provided at an inner side of the raised part and includes a roof extending above at least a portion of an inner peripheral side of the calendar disk holder (30 in Figs. 3-4 of Vuilleumier).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Vuilleumier as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Yoshihiko (JP 2017146266).
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the solar panel is a circular solar panel (135 in Figs. 2-3).
The combination of Sugimoto and Vuilleumier does not show the solar panel disposed between the third mounting part and the second lower surface.
Yoshihiko teaches (Fig. 3d) a solar panel (5) disposed between a third mounting part (4) and a second lower surface (7) of a frame.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Yoshihiko’s frame with Sugimoto’s device so that the solar panel can be disposed be between the third mounting part and second lower surface, as suggested by Yoshihiko. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to so as to be able to adjust a watch dial’s height without reducing the efficacity of the solar panel ([0005] of Yoshihiko).
Regarding claim 5, Sugimoto in view of Vuilleumier and Yoshihiko discloses (Fig. 3d of Yoshihiko) the electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the outer peripheral frame (7) is locked (via 75) to the base (4) and presses at least a portion of an outer peripheral portion of the circular solar panel (5) by at least the second lower surface. Figs. 3c-3d of Yoshihiko shows an outer periphery of the solar panel 5 pressed up against 7.
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto in view of Vuilleumier and Yoshihiko discloses (Fig. 3d of Yoshihiko) the electronic device according to claim 5, wherein at least a portion of the outer peripheral frame includes a hook (75) that extends downward and is locked to an outer peripheral portion of the base (4).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Vuilleumier as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Murakami (JP 2002350567).
Regarding claim 7, Sugimoto in view of Vuillleumier discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first mounting part (see claim 1’s rejection’s annotated image) is provided at a lower level than the calendar disk (28 in Fig. 4, Vuilleumier). The disk is on top of the second mounting part, which is above the first mounting part, so the first mounting part is lower than the calendar disk.
The combination of Sugimoto and Vuilleumier does not show that the solar panel is an solar panel is disposed on the first mounting part.
Murakami teaches (Fig. 2) an electronic device comprising an annular solar panel (4) disposed on a first mounting part (5). See also [0014] of the translation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Murakami annular solar panel with Sugimoto’s device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide more power to the device to increase its lifetime and allow it to operate.
Regarding claim 8, Sugimoto in view of Vuilleumier and Murakami discloses the electronic device according to claim 7.
The combination of Sugimoto, Vuilleumier, and Murakami does not show a distance from the main surface of the first mounting part to an upper surface of the raised part in the thickness direction is greater than a thickness of the annular solar panel.
However, the claimed calendar disk is disposed on the raised part (see claim 1 and its rejection). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that the annular solar panel being thicker than the distance would knock and tilt the calendar disk.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a distance from the main surface of the first mounting part to an upper surface of the raised part in the thickness direction be greater than a thickness of the annular solar panel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this spatial arrangement so as to prevent the device’s components from interfering with one another. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that a change in relative dimensions of a device, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art. As such, the particular distances claimed by Applicant are nothing more than a desired size a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability of the intended use of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 227 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-09-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Sugimoto only shows a solar panel above a main surface of a second mounting part, not the claimed solar panel above a main surface of a first or third mounting part. However, Applicant is narrowing the meaning of “above”—“above” can simply mean to be at “a higher place” (see Above.pdf), and 135 in Fig. 5 of Sugimoto is at a higher level than the identified 1st part’s main surface. The claim does not set forth the narrow interpretation that the solar panel should overlap the 1st part’s main surface in plan view, or be above an entire horizontal surface of the 1st and 2nd surfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 11-12, Sugimoto shows (Fig. 5) a base (125, 126) configured to receive a solar panel (135) in a first position in which the solar panel is provided above a main surface of a first mounting part (edge of 125) and not above a main surface of a third mounting part (126a), but does not show the base configured to receive the solar panel in a second position in which the solar panel is provided above the main surface of the third mounting part, in combination with the other limitations.
Vuilleumier shows (Fig. 4) a base (38) configured to receive a disc (12, 28) in (i) a first position in which the disc (28) is above a first part’s main surface (inner edge of 38) and not above a third part’s main surface (outer edge of 38) and (ii) a second position in which the disc (12) is above the third part’s main surface (outer edge of 38), but does not show the disc being a solar panel, in combination with the other limtiations.
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