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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 2023-08-31. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-140633 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2025-08-01 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The included foreign copies are missing text. This error may be because the copies were scanned in grayscale rather than black-and-white.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Applicant’s abstract should not use the word “disclosed.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 4 recites that a circular solar panel will be between a third mounting part and second lower surface. However, Figs. 2-3 show only a circular panel (51) below and to the right of a third mounting part 23, with an outer peripheral frame 6 comprising the second lower surface to the left of 23. The claimed feature must be shown or canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 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 6 recites a “hook that extends downward in the thickness direction” in lines 2-3. However, claim 1 establishes the thickness direction as being upwards (“raised upward in a thickness direction”). The limitation has been read as -hook that extends downward-.
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).
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, further comprising a circular solar panel (135 in Fig. 2).
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 the electronic device further comprising an annular solar panel that 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakajima (US 20190294120) discloses an electronic watch with a solar panel.
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