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 Interpretation
The prior art was reviewed relative to the term runner which has a broad interpretation in the art to which the invention pertains.
See Dubois US 3397531 claim 1 and figures 1-2.
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 3 and 15 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 a first axis and a second axis. Claim 3 recites the axis. It is unclear which axis is being referred to. Claim 3 is therefore indefinite. Claim 15 recites: presenting or provisioning and the mounting, and after the provisioning and placing. It is unclear which of the plurality of previous steps by the same verb name is being referred back to. I.e. presenting is recited a plurality of times in parent claim 13. Claim 15 is therefore indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 recites a method for mounting an assembly depending from the assembly of claim 1. Claim 1 is already a device claim. Claim 13 is a method claim depending from said device claim 1. Claim 16 recites the device obtained by the method of claim 13 which in form is a device claim. This cannot reasonably be construed to add any scope to the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Davies CH 96695.
With regard to claim 1 Davies discloses a horological assembly of an arbor on a rough movement, wherein:
the arbor (F figure 2) comprises a first axis and a shoulder extending at least in a direction radial to the first axis (figure 2), and
PNG
media_image1.png
825
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the rough movement (A figure 3) comprises a groove (notch C) oriented along a second axis (see figure 3),
the arbor (D ) and the rough movement (A ) being configured and/or arranged so as to:
stop the arbor in translation along the first axis relative to the rough movement (figure 2 the arbor is held in operational place), and,
make it possible for the arbor, during mounting, to be slid in translation in the groove along the second axis at right angles to the first axis (figures 2, 3 the element(s) N, M, with P holds the arbor in place and allows its removal or insertion during mounting).
With regard to claim 2 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbor is mounted with overhang (figure 2 the staff is wider than its narrowest section(s) so as to define such an overhang).
With regard to claim 3 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbor is mounted on the rough movement without passing through the latter in the direction of the axis (figures 1-3; there are two axis claimed, the arbor doesn’t need to pass through at least one).
With regard to claim 4 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rough movement (A) comprises a bush (B) driven into and/or glued in a hole formed in a rest of the rough movement (A and B).
PNG
media_image2.png
218
157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The top plate is screwed to the bottom plate in a fashion consistent with the terms bush and driven into.
With regard to claim 5 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 4, wherein the hole is bordered by an overthickness formed locally on the rest of the rough movement (see bolt to form a clamping overthickness that exists only in the local region).
With regard to claim 6 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the arbor (F) is mounted to be movable in rotation about the first axis relative to the rough movement (A; figures 2, 3).
With regard to claim 7 Davies discloses a horological movement comprising a horological assembly as claimed in claim 1 (movement: d’horlorerie – title).
With regard to claim 8 Davies discloses the horological movement as claimed in claim 7, wherein the arbor is a barrel arbor to an end of which is fixed a toothed wheel (figures 1 and 2. The elements lack reference numerals as the barrel and teeth aren’t the inventive portion of the reference, but they are depicted none the less. See also barillet line 1 column 1).
With regard to claim 9 Davies discloses the horological movement as claimed in claim 7, wherein the horological movement comprises a barrel (E; barillet line 2) and wherein a toothed ring of the barrel is pivoted on the rough movement (figures 2, 3), the toothed ring being linked mechanically to a core provided on the arbor by a motor spring (the system discloses a barrel for retaining drive energy for the system per the technical meaning of the term in horology. The system is cylindrical and must retain a spring held in tension between an internal core and an external drive body in order to be operational. The alternative of the spring being attached only to an outside without a core would mean there is no way for the cylindrical body to store or develop energy to function as a barrel.)
With regard to claim 10 Davies discloses the horological movement as claimed in claim 9, wherein the toothed ring is guided in rotation on the rough movement by runners (D figure 2, top and bottom bearings).
With regard to claim 11 Davies discloses the horological movement as claimed in claim 10, wherein the runners are pivoted about axes driven into a rough movement (A) and/or wherein the horological movement (A) comprises pins that are adjustable in position (D; or J, P, etc.) on the first axis so as to define, by contact with a toothed wheel, a shake of the toothed wheel (figure 1-5).
With regard to claim 12 Davies discloses a timepiece comprising a horological movement as claimed in claim 7 (title).
With regard to claim 13 Davies discloses a method for mounting a horological assembly as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising:
presenting or provisioning the arbor (see arbor figure 2) and sliding the arbor in translation (see the insertion groove figure 1) along a second axis in the groove of the rough movement and presenting or provisioning the toothed crown and mounting the toothed crown on the rough movement or on a frame (each side of the notch C are fixed eyelets H, in which a pin J can slide perpendicularly to the notch C, one bent end of which is bent at right angles to g so to be able to be engaged in a hole L, made in the plate), then provisioning and placing a motor spring so as to mechanically link the arbor to the toothed crown (the barrel E would necessarily comprise a spring mechanically linked to the arbor in order to form a barrel as understood by those having ordinary skill in the art. the system discloses a barrel for retaining drive energy for the system per the technical meaning of the term in horology. The system is cylindrical and must retain a spring held in tension between an internal core and an external drive body in order to be operational. The alternative of the spring being attached only to an outside without a core would mean there is no way for the cylindrical body to store or develop energy to function as a barrel.)
With regard to claim 14 Davies discloses the method as claimed in claim 13, the method comprising:
presenting or provisioning the toothed crown and mounting the toothed crown (figures 1 and 2 depict the toothed crown) on the rough movement (A) or on a frame (A) and presenting or provisioning the arbor and a motor spring and assembling the motor spring on the arbor to obtain an assembly (figure 2), then mounting the assembly by sliding the arbor in translation along a second axis in the groove of the rough movement (each side of the notch C are fixed eyelets H, in which a pin J can slide perpendicularly to the notch C, one bent end of which is bent at right angles to g so to be able to be engaged in a hole L, made in the plate)
With regard to claim 15 Davies discloses the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the method comprises, after the presenting or provisioning and the mounting, and after the provisioning and placing: placing the toothed wheel on the arbor and fixing the toothed wheel and the arbor to one another (The step of placing the toothed wheel on the arbor would have to occur after the presenting step and/or provisioning, because if the system wasn’t presented it couldn’t be mounted to as it would not yet exist in the process.)
With regard to claim 16 Davies discloses a device obtained by implementing the method as claimed in claim 13 (figures 1, 2)
With regard to claim 17 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the arbor includes a barrel arbor (the disclose mentions the barrel – barillet, and the system is mounted on an arbor D), and/or
the rough movement is a bar or a plate (A figure )
With regard to claim 18 Davies discloses the horological assembly as claimed in claim 4, wherein the hole is a through-hole (figure 2 the mounting elements are shown extending through the hole).
With regard to claim 19 Davies discloses the horological movement as claimed in claim 8, wherein the toothed wheel is a ratchet (see figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
542
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant defines the ratchet as 83
PNG
media_image4.png
351
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Since the claim states the wheel is the ratchet that must define a feature of the wheel. The wheel of the prior art has the same features as applicants’ thus it is understood to be the same sort of wheel namely a ratchet. Moreover those skilled in the art would understand a barrel of the prior art reference to be such a ratchet owing to the term barrel (barillet in French).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies CH 96695 in view of Grimm US 4500213 and Papi US 2010/0246341.
With regard to claim 20 (depends from claim 10) Davies does not disclose the claimed: wherein the runners are made of rubies.
Grimm US 4500213 teaches plain bearing 94 made of ruby column 6 lines 61-68.Papi US 2010/0246341 teaches a runner made of ruby paragraph 50 to reduce friction.
It 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 to configure Davies system with runners are made of rubies, as taught by Grimm and Papi. The reason for doing so would have been to guide the system in rotation with the least friction as taught by Grimm and Papi.
Conclusion
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
