Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/849,332

TIMEPIECE MOVEMENT COMPRISING A DEVICE FOR DISPLAYING AT LEAST TWO TIME ZONES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Priority
Mar 25, 2022 — CH CH000333/2022 +1 more
Examiner
WALKER, MICHAEL JAMES
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Parmigiani Fleurier S A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
23 granted / 27 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
37
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 27 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: fig. 2 - elements 5, 7, 8, and 11-14 fig. 3 - element 12 fig. 5, 6A, and 6B - element 41 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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a mechanism for setting the time in the second time zone”. Support is found for this limitation in para. [0023] of the specification which describes said mechanism for setting the time. “a mechanism for synchronizing the member for displaying the current hour and the member for displaying the local hour”. Support is found for this limitation in para. [0027] of the specification which describes said mechanism for synchronizing. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-7 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 display device” (line 2) and "said second control member" (ln. 14-15). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 5 recites the term “a control member” in ln. 2. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a control member” in ln. 14. This renders claim 5 indefinite as it is unclear whether this “control member” is the same or different “a control member” from the control member recited in claim 1. The term “said control member” in ln. 3 is likewise indefinite as it is unclear which “a control member” is being referenced. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the local hour display” in ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ishigami – JP 2001083265 – Time Difference Display-Type Watch – Discloses a dual time-zone watch with superimposing hour hands on a single timepiece display wherein the wheels for displaying the local and remote time are coupled frictionally and use the setting crown shaft to adjust the time zone difference. Humair – CH 699785 – Travel Timepiece i.e. Watch, has Home and Local Hour Wheels Corresponding to Respective Time Zones, and Date Display Mechanism Including Control Wheel Driven by Local Hour Wheel, Where Date Wheel is Driven by Control Wheel – Discloses an implementation of a dual time-zone watch with superimposing hour hands on a single timepiece display relying instead on pushbutton advance and retreat buttons instead of the rattrapante-style mechanism for resynchronizing the hour hands. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12681438
ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING COUPLING MEMBER
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12669784
CROWN SENSING SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRONIC WATCH
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12669782
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLING LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12656742
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING BODY-CONTACTABLE ELECTRODE
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12613498
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND TIMEPIECE
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (-4.6%)
2y 9m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 27 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month