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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The term “annular” is being interpreted to mean “closed shape” as per the specification (para. [0013]).
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junghans Uhren (DE 29903431, hereinafter Junghans) in view of Kojima (JP 2015222268, hereinafter Kojima).
Regarding claim 1, Junghans teaches “A watch (14) comprising: an annular light emitting member (24); and an annular cover member (17) at least part of which (22) covers the light emitting member in a planar view from above, and having a slope inclined upward as extending inward from an outside of the watch in a lower portion (fig. 1, (22) slopes upward in the inward direction), ... and having a curved shape ((22) is curved)”.
However, Junghans fails to teach “... the slope of the cover member includes a first slope portion and a second slope portion, in a cross-sectional view from a planar direction orthogonal to a vertical direction, the first slope portion having a linear shape, and the second slope portion located below the first slope portion ...”
Kojima teaches “... the slope of the cover member (8) includes a first slope portion (upward angled portion of (8)) and a second slope portion (vertical portion of (8)), in a cross-sectional view from a planar direction orthogonal to a vertical direction, the first slope portion having a linear shape (the upper portion of (8) is linear in shape), and the second slope portion located below the first slope portion (the second slope is below the first slope) ...”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the annular light emitter and curved cover member of Junghans with the multi-sloped cover with linear sloping portion of Kojima with the expected benefit of more evenly lighting the dial of the timepiece while shading the user’s eyes from the direct light of the light emitting member.
PNG
media_image1.png
355
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Junghans and Kojima make obvious the watch according to claim 1. Junghans (fig. 1) further teaches “an end portion of the second slope portion on a side of the light emitting member abuts on the light emitting member, and the second slope portion is inclined such that an angle formed with the planar direction becomes closer to 90° as approaching the light emitting member.”
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junghans and Kojima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shockbase (Shockbase MTG-B1000-1A NPL, hereinafter Shockbase).
Regarding claim 2, Junghans and Kojima make obvious the watch according to claim 1. Kojima further teaches “at least one reflecting member (“first light reflecting portion”, 84) having a third slope portion inclined downward as extending inward from the outside of the watch in an upper portion of the cover member (84 slopes downward as it extends inward)”.
However, Junghans and Kojima fail to teach “the third slope portion has a mirror surface.”
PNG
media_image2.png
1055
1174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shockbase teaches a timepiece with sloping reflective members having a metallic finish. Polishing metallic surfaces to a mirror surface is routine and ordinary in the art of horology.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the sloping reflecting member of Kojima by polishing the sloping portion of the indicator to a mirror finish with the expected benefit of better reflecting light towards the user of the watch.
Regarding claim 3, Junghans, Kojima and Shockbase make obvious the watch according to claim 2. Kojima and Shockbase show, but do not specifically teach, “an angle formed by the third slope portion and the planar direction is 45° to 60°”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to angle the sloping reflective members of Kojima and Shockbase within a range of 45° to 60° with the predictable result of reflecting the greatest amount incident light from the illuminating member towards the user of the watch.
Regarding claim 4, Junghans, Kojima and Shockbase make obvious the watch according to claim 3. Shockbase further teaches “the reflecting members are arranged at equal intervals along a circumferential direction of the cover member in planar view from above.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to space the reflective members equally around the circumference of the dial of the watch to indicate equal portions of time.
Regarding claim 5, Junghans, Kojima and Shockbase make obvious the watch according to claim 4. Shockbase further teaches “the reflecting members are 12 hour marks arranged at equal intervals along the circumferential direction of the cover member in planar view from above.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to space 12 reflective members equally around the circumference of the dial of the watch to indicate the hours.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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.
/MICHAEL JAMES WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights