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 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the same size" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation has been read as -a same size-.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the overall horizontal” in the last line. The limitation has been read as -the horizontal-.
The term “near the barrel” in claim 6is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Different persons will have different opinions on how close the crown and barrel should be to be “near.”
Claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for “the lower surface” in line 2. The limitation has been read as -a lower surface-.
Claim 8 recites “a minute wheel,” “a minutes dial,” “an hour wheel,” and “an hours dial” in lines 2-3. Whether these limitations refer to new wheels and dials or the same recited in claim 1 is unclear. Claim 8 is suggested to read -…the minute wheel is positioned beneath the minutes dial and the hour wheel is positioned beneath the hours dial-.
Claim 12 recites “the four greatest surface areas” without antecedent basis in line 3. How this limitation should be changed/interpreted is unclear (see below).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The hours dial/wheel, minutes dial/wheel, barrel, and balance cannot have the four greatest surface areas because the surface areas of (1) the inner side of the case, (2) the underside of the crystal, (3) the upper side of the case back, and (4) the movement must all be larger. What exact attribute is the “greatest” about the recited components therefore cannot be the surface area, and what Applicant means instead is unclear. Applicant may need to amend “surface areas” to something else or further define “within the case.” As such, the claim is not being considered for the purposes of prior art rejections.
Claim 14 depends on claim 1. Therefore, whether essentially every limitation/structure recited in claim 14 is meant to refer to the same limitation/structure in claim 1 or a new is unclear because claim 14 does not use “the” or “said.” For the purpose of examination, the limitations/structures in claim 14 are understood to be the same as those recited in claim 1.
Claim 16/5 recites “an escapement” in line 2. Claim 5 already recites an escapement. Whether claim 16 refers to the same or different escapement is unclear.
Claim 19/18 recites “an escapement” in line 2. Claim 18 already recites an escapement. Whether claim 19 refers to the same or different escapement is unclear.
Claim 20 recites “a diameter greater in a range of from 30 mm to 45 mm” in lines 2-3. Whether claim 20 is limiting the diameter to 30 mm to 45 mm or stating that the diameter should be greater than 45 mm is unclear. The limitation has been read as -a diameter in a range of 30 mm to 45 mm-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 6-11, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orny (EP 2317408).
Regarding claim 1, Orny teaches (Figs. 1-3) a timepiece comprising a case, wherein a horizontal surface (surface of Fig. 3) of the timepiece is divided into four horizontal sectors of substantially the same size (see image below—the lines divide the timepiece into four numbered quadrants each with a horizontal edge), and wherein the timepiece comprises; an hours dial (subdial of 6) and/or an hour wheel (wheel driving 6a) occupying a surface of a first sector, a minutes dial (2) and/or a minute wheel (wheel driving 7) occupying a surface of a second sector neighboring the first sector, a barrel ([0033] of Applicant’s translation: “barrel 16”) occupying a surface of a third sector, and a balance ([0033]: “flywheel 18 for regulating”) occupying a surface of a fourth sector, the hours dial and/or the hour wheel, the minutes dial and/or the minute wheel, the barrel and the balance each being distributed in a different quarter of the overall horizontal surface of the timepiece. Fig. 3 shows that the hours dial/wheel, minutes dial/wheel, barrel, and balance each lying in different quadrants of the horizontal surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Orny teaches the timepiece as claimed in claim 1, wherein the timepieces comprises at least two independent functional modules. The barrel is a module with the function of powering the timepiece, and the balance is a module with the function of keeping time. These functions are different in purpose and therefore independent.
Regarding claim 3, Orny teaches (Figs. 1-3) the timepiece as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least two independent functional modules (16, 18) comprise components mounted between an upper bridge and a lower bridge. The lower bridge is the surface on which 16, 18 are disposed in Fig. 3, and the upper bridge is at least the dial under which 16, 18 are disposed in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Orny teaches (Fig.3) the timepiece as claimed in claims 2 and 3, respectively, wherein the timepiece comprises a balance module (18) and a going-train module. The going-train module must be present in the timepiece to transfer power from the barrel to the other components, and to convert the mainspring’s kept time into hours, minutes, and seconds.
Regarding claim 6, Orny teaches (Fig. 3) the timepiece as claimed in claim 1, wherein the timepiece comprises a winding crown (20) arranged near the barrel (16), connected to the barrel by a winding train ([0034]). The crown winds the barrel, so a gear train must connect the two together.
Regarding claim 7, Orny teaches the timepiece as claimed in claim 6, wherein the winding crown and/or the setting crown is arranged beneath lower surface of the timepiece. The crown(s) is arranged in the middle of the timepiece (Fig. 3), so it is beneath a lower surface of a top of the timepiece.
Regarding claim 8, Orny teaches the timepiece as claimed in claim 6, wherein the timepiece the minute wheel is positioned beneath the minutes dial and the hour wheel is positioned beneath the hours dial. Compare Figs. 1-2 with Fig. 3—the minutes wheel and hours wheel are below the respective dials so as to drive indicators on the dial.
Regarding claim 9, Orny teaches the timepiece as claimed in claim 1, wherein the timepiece comprises a going train arranged between the barrel, the balance and the hour wheel and/or the minute wheel. Paragraphs [0033] and [0066] discloses that at least a going train between the barrel and balance to regulate power and keep time.
Regarding claim 10, Orny teaches the timepiece as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hours dial and/or the hour wheel, the minutes dial and/or the minute wheel, the barrel and the balance are not superposed with one another, so as to limit a thickness of the timepiece. See Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11, Orny teaches the timepiece as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the hours dial and/or the hour wheel, the minutes dial and/or the minute wheel, the barrel and the balance has one end that is positioned at a boundary of a horizontal plane of the timepiece, and at margins of a bezel and/or of a case middle of the case of the timepiece. The figure below shows ends of each of the hours dial/wheel, minutes dial/wheel, barrel, and balance positioned at a boundary of a horizontal plane of the timepiece and at margins of a case middle of the case of the timepiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As best, understood, regarding claim 14, Orny teaches (Figs. 3) a method for assembling the timepiece as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hours dial (subdial of 6) occupying the first sector, the minutes dial (2) occupying the second sector neighboring the first sector, the barrel (16) occupying the third sector, the balance (16) occupying the fourth sector are mounted in the four horizontal sectors (see claim 1’s rejection’s annotated image).
Regarding claim 15, Orny teaches the method for as claimed in claim 14, wherein the method comprises mounting at least two independent functional modules on the timepiece. The barrel is a module with the function of powering the timepiece, and the balance is a module with the function of keeping time. These functions are different in purpose and therefore independent.
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 5, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orny in view of Hans (US 3460341).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Orny discloses the timepiece as claimed in claim 4.
Orny does not show the balance module further comprising an escapement and the going-train module comprising at least three wheels.
Hans teaches a balance module comprising an escapement (abstract) and a going-train module with four wheels (claim 3).
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 Hans’s escapement and four wheels with Orny’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create a functional balance.
Regarding claims 18-19, Orny discloses the timepiece as claimed in claim 17.
Orny does not show the balance module further comprising an escapement and the going-train module comprising at least three wheels.
Hans teaches a balance module comprising an escapement (abstract) and a going-train module with four wheels (claim 3).
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 Hans’s escapement and four wheels with Orny’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create a functional balance.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orny in view of Mariotto (US 20120082009).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Orny discloses the timepiece as claimed in claim 1.
Orny does not show the timepiece having a diameter between 30 and 45 mm.
Mariotto teaches a timepiece having a diameter below 40 mm (abstract). Mariotto therefore teaches a timepiece with a diameter between 30 and 40 mm.
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 Orny’s timepiece to have a diameter between 30 and 40 mm, as taught by Mariotto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a timepiece with a known and desired size that aesthetically fits people’s wrists.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goulard discloses a timepiece with an hour dial/wheel and a minute dial/wheel (Lange1.pdf). Montredo discloses that as of July 2021, the world’s thinnest watch was 2 mm (ThinnestWatch2021.pdf).
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