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 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the drawings are depicted in figure 1 which shows a spindle 112 perpendicular from the support body. This argument is not persuasive. As previously stated “Any two non-coaxial axes define a plane. However, there’s no figure showing the defined plane of the invention perpendicular to the body as claimed.” Claim 1 recites “vibrating table movable along two different axes which extend in the same plane”. Claim 4 recites a spindle integral with the body and extending perpendicularly to the body and to the vibrational plane. That’s the part at issue. Applicant doesn’t depict the plane defined by the two different axes. Claim 11’s recitation is similar. Emphasis is added to the phrase “axes which extend in the same plane”. That isn’t extend perpendicular to a plane. That extend in the same plane. So the plane must be parallel to the axes or they don’t extend in the plane. The axis of portion 113 is perpendicular to the plane of 120. The axis does not extend in the plane. Applicant states figure 1 clearly shows that cover 150 is movable vertically which is perpendicular to the horizontal vibration plane of table 120. This makes the examiner’s point well. The axis is perpendicular. It does not extend in the plane. It intersects the plane at only one singular point. That isn’t extending in, that is intersecting with.Applicant asserts that Briscombe is based on a fundamental mischaracterization of Briscome and an improper motivation to combine. This argument is not persuasive. The preamble statement “a device for separating an assembly of balance springs” is a statement of intended use. It is not a structural feature of the invention. The rejection is proper and thus has been maintained. Consult MPEP 2111.02 regarding the effect of a preamble. Applicant contests that Briscombe is based on an entirely different field. This argument is not persuasive. If the prior art teaches the claim limitations, then applicant has not narrowly construed the claim limitations to the asserted field of application. Both references pertain to the field of horology. Moreover, the prior art addresses the specific issue of retaining a spring. They meet the analogous art requirement of 35 USC 103. The rejection is proper and has been maintained. Applicant asserts that Briscombe does not cause the spring to vibrate in a plane parallel – claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites two different axes. Briscombe teaches three axes a-a, b-b, and c-c. Any two of them interest to define a plane which the two axes extend in. As shown in figure 1 b-b and a-a define a plane parallel to 110. Newton’s first law states that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion at a constant speed and in a straight line, unless a push or pull acts on it. Since the system moves, the internal workings of watch 200 would be subject to disturbance. That is to say they would vibrate. Moreover, the express purpose of the system is to wind the watch – abstract, paragraphs 1-4. This is only possible if the system causes the internal workings to oscillate and move so as to induce a vibration. The claim limitations have clearly been met. The rejection is proper and is being maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation for separating an assembly of balance springs is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
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. Therefore, the “perpendicularly to the body and to the vibration plane of said vibrating table” (Claim 4), “removable cover can be moved translatably along an axis perpendicular to the vibration plane of the vibrating table” (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Any two non-coaxial axes define a plane. However, there’s no figure showing the defined plane of the invention perpendicular to the body as claimed.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 § 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, 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscombe (US 2021/0223739) in view of Eddison (US 2057642).With regard to claim 1 Briscombe discloses a device for separating an assembly of balance springs which have been wound in and have undergone an expansion cycle, the device comprising:
a support (210 figure 1); and
a vibrating table (110 figure 1) movable along two different axes (A-A, B-B, etc. figure 1.) which extend in the same plane (figure 1, any two axes define a plane), defining a vibration plane (figure 1), the vibrating table being configured to cause said support to vibrate in a plane parallel to the vibration plane (figure 1).
Briscombe does not teach the claimed support comprising: notches intended to receive the inner strands of the wound in balance springs.
Eddison teaches a hairspring with a collet that holds the inner strands of the wound in balance springs with notches – figure 1.
Before the earliest effective filing date It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Briscombe’s system to comprise a self winding watch having Eddison’s support and spring. The reason for doing so would have been to wind a normal and ordinary watch design in a normal and ordinary way using Briscombe’s winder and Eddison’s spring. A reason for doing so would have been to combine Briscome’s advantages with Eddison’s advantages in spring design and mounting.
With regard to claim 2 Briscombe and Eddison teach the device according to claim 1, wherein said two vibration axes are orthogonal (figure 1).
With regard to claim 3 Briscombe and Eddison teach the device according to claim 1, wherein said vibrating table vibrates in a circular translational motion (figure 1 – A-A, B-B)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-19 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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