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 § 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.
Claims 5-8 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 5 recites the limitation "the shaft" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has been read as -a shaft-.
Claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for “the minute wheel” in line 2. The limitation has been read as -a minute wheel-.
Claim 8 recites “it” in line 2. What “it” refers to is unclear. The limitation has been read as -the movement-.
Claim 10 recites “a horological movement” in lines 1-2. Whether this limitation refers to a new movement or the previous one is unclear. The limitation has been read as -the horological movement-.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philippon (US 20170075304).
Regarding claim 1, Philippon teaches (Figs. 1, 4, 6) a horological movement (title) comprising a mechanism for setting and winding said horological movement (abstract and [0002]), the setting and winding mechanism comprising a winding stem (1) with an axis of revolution X (longitudinal axis of 1), having a first end (outer end of 1) cooperating with a winding button ([0009]-[0012] discloses the stem will occupy multiple axial positions), and a second end (inner end of 1) opposite the winding button, said winding stem being movable rotatably and translatably ([0032])along the axis of revolution X between a first axial position ([00010: “a winding position”) of the winding stem in which a rotation of the winding stem winds the horological movement, and a second axial position ([0011]: “a date correction position”) of the winding stem in which a rotation of the winding stem sets a function of the horological movement, wherein the setting and winding mechanism comprises a positioning stop (8, shaft of 4) configured to cooperate, by contact, with said second end of the winding stem to stop said winding stem axially in said first axial position ([0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Philippon teaches (Fig. 1) the horological movement according to claim 1, wherein said positioning stop (8) extends perpendicularly relative to a general plane P1 formed by a pull-out piece jumper (6) comprised in the setting and winding mechanism, or relative to a general plane formed by a bridge (plane of 8) or by a plate comprised in the horological movement. The stop 8 has a thickness, so it extends perpendicularly.
Regarding claim 3, Philippon teaches (Fig. 1) the horological movement according to claim 2, wherein said positioning stop (8) is integral with said bridge (8), said plate (8), or the pull-out piece jumper.
Regarding claim 5, Philippon teaches (Fig. 6) the horological movement according to claim 1, wherein said positioning stop (shaft of 4) is the shaft about which a moving part (4) of the horological movement pivots. 4 is a sliding pinion ([0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Philippon teaches (Fig. 6) the horological movement according to claim 5, wherein said moving part (4) is configured to mesh with a sliding pinion (2) carried by the winding stem when the latter is positioned in said second axial position (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Philippon teaches the horological movement according to claim 5, wherein said moving part (4 in Fig. 1) is an intermediate wheel for a minute wheel. Paragraph [0037] discloses that the moving part 4 is used to set the time. The moving part is therefore an intermediate wheel that can be used for a minute wheel to set minute time.
Regarding claim 8, Philippon teaches the horological movement according to claim 7, wherein it comprises a motion-work train cooperating with the intermediate wheel (4 in Fig. 1) for the minute wheel. The gears downstream of 4 in Fig. 1 form a motion-work train that transfers rotations from 4 to set the time ([0037]). The motion-work train can therefore be for a minute wheel.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philippon.
Regarding claim 10, Philippon discloses the horological movement according to claim 1.
Philippon does not explicitly show a timepiece comprising the horological movement.
Philippon teaches that the horological movement is for a timepiece (title).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Philippon’s movement in a timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Philippon’s invention in this way to fulfill the invention’s purpose.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philippon in view of Kramer (US 20060130938).
Regarding claim 9, Philippon discloses the horological movement according to claim 1.
Philippon does not show the positioning stop being made of steel.
Kramer teaches steel being used for watch components ([0002]).
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 Philippon’s stop out of steel, as suggested by Kramer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this material selection as a known material for manufacturing watches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 4, Philippon discloses pins (16, 18 in Fig. 1) being used to stop levers, plates, and bridges ([0048]). The prior art does not show a positioning stop that is a pin, stud, or screw contacting a second end of a winding stem to stop the winding stem axially in an axial position, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lagorgette (US 20180373204) discloses a push-piece winding button that occupies different axial positions (title, abstract).
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