DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cretin (CH 716 561).
Regarding claim 1, Cretin discloses a clasp (1) for a bracelet, the clasp being able to occupy a closed position designed to hold the bracelet around a wrist of a wearer and an open position suitable for removing the bracelet from a hand of the wearer, wherein the clasp comprises:
a central blade (7),
at least one intermediate blade (9) fitted to be movable in pivoting via a first end on an end of the central blade (Figs. 3-4 as shown), and
at least one end blade (11) fitted to be pivotably movable by a first end on a second end of the intermediate blade (Figs. 3-4 as shown), the at least one blade comprising an element for receiving a bracelet strand on a second end (Figs. 2-4 show wherein 11 is connected at an end to the bracelet 4),
wherein the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade are fitted together in a transverse direction in the closed position of the clasp without forming any overthickness in a direction at right angles to the clasp (Paragraph 6, Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 2, Cretin further discloses wherein, in the closed position, a total maximum thickness of the clasp corresponds to a maximum thickness of a thickest blade of the clasp, among the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the end blade (Figs. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Cretin further discloses wherein the clasp comprises an elastic holding device for stabilizing the closed position of the clasp (14, wherein 18 engages 19 as discussed in Paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 4, Cretin further discloses wherein, in the closed position, the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade, do not generate any overthickness of the clasp by a vertical superpositioning, or wherein the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade are substantially exclusively fitted together in the transverse direction, with no superpositioning (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Cretin further discloses wherein, in the closed position, the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade occupy a configuration so that top surfaces of the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade form a continuous surface (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Cretin further discloses wherein the at least one intermediate blade comprises two parallel branches (12, 12’) which come to be positioned on either side of the central blade in the transverse direction in the closed position, and wherein the at least one end blade comprises two parallel branches (8’, 8”) which come to be positioned on either side respectively of the parallel branches of the at least one intermediate blade, in the transverse direction, in the closed position (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 7, Cretin further discloses wherein the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade have a substantially equal maximum thickness or average thickness (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Cretin further discloses wherein a length of the at least one intermediate blade and a length of the at least one end blade are substantially equal (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Cretin further discloses wherein the central blade comprises a set back portion (19) for housing, without overthickness, a transverse branch (18) of the intermediate blade in the closed position.
Regarding claim 11, Cretin further discloses wherein the clasp comprises an elastic holding device which comprises through-slits (21) produced in the central blade.
Regarding claim 12, Cretin further discloses wherein the clasp comprises two intermediate blades (9, 9a) fitted to pivot on the central blade and two end blades (11, 11a), respectively fitted to pivot on each intermediate blade, forming a symmetrical structure relative to a transverse median plane of the clasp (Figs. 2-5 as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Cretin further discloses wherein the bracelet comprises two bracelet strands (5a, 5b) fixed to the clasp as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Cretin further discloses wherein, in the closed position of the clasp, a top surface of at least one bracelet strand comes into continuity with a top surface of the clasp (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cretin further discloses a timepiece (Fig. 1 as shown), notably a wristwatch, or jewelry timepiece, wherein the timepiece comprises the bracelet as claimed in claim 13; and wherein the timepiece comprises the bracelet as claimed in claim 14 (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 17, Cretin further discloses wherein the central blade, the at least one intermediate blade, and the at least one end blade have a substantially equal average thickness (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 20, Cretin further discloses wherein the clasp comprises an elastic holding device (21) for stabilizing the closed position of the clasp.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cretin as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 19, Cretin discloses the invention except for wherein a maximum thickness of the clasp, in the closed position, is less than or equal to 3.5 mm, even less than or equal to 3 mm, even less than or equal to 2.8 mm; wherein a maximum thickness of the clasp, in the closed position, is less than or equal to 3 mm; and wherein a maximum thickness of the clasp, in the closed position, is less than or equal to 2.8 mm. However, the ranges claimed herein are within the range of conventional clasps and watch band straps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cretin to the specific thickness ranges to properly match watch cases and optimize weight and comfort parameters. As discussed in MPEP 2144.05, where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677