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 .
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.
The following title is suggested: “TIME DISPLAY COMPRISING HELICALLY ARRANGED CIRCULAR DISKS”.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract discloses “a time-indicating method,” but the claims are drawn to an apparatus. “A time-indicating method” is suggested to be changed to -a time-indicating display-.
The abstract is objected to because “at least of a time-indicating device” in line 1 is idiomatically incorrect and appears to mean -at least one of a time-indicating device-.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “which segments together form” in line 4 is idiomatically incorrect and should be -which segments together to form-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 same direction” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation has been read as -a same direction-.
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). Applicant recites in claim 1 that helically arranged disks “lie flat on top of one another,” but to be helically arranged is to have depth and be multi-dimensioned; Applicant’s use of the word “flat” is self-contradictory because a structure cannot be helical and flat. For the purposes of examination, “lie flat on top of one another” has been read as -lie on top of one another-.
Claim 1 recites “these are interlaced” in the third-to-last line. What structures are interlaced is not stated so the limitation is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been read as -these circular disks are interlaced-.
Claim 2 recites “drive disk” in line 6. Which drive disk this limitation refers to is ambiguous because there are three recited drive disks. For the purposes of examination, “drive disk and holding points are arranged in a plane” has been read as -each drive disk and corresponding holding point are arranged in a plane-.
Claim 2 recites “the coupling” in line 11. This limitation has ambiguous antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, “the coupling of the circular disk with the drive disk” has been read as -each coupling of the circular disk with the drive disk-.
Claim 2 recites “the one side of the slot” in the third-to-last line. There are insufficient and ambiguous antecedent bases for these limitations. The limitations have been read as -one side of each slot-.
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “the corresponding” in line 2. The limitation has been read as -each-.
Claim 3 has ambiguous antecedent basis for “the slot” in line 3. The limitation has been read as -each slot-.
Claim 3 recites “it is articulated” in lines 3-4. What “it” refers to is unclear. The limitation has been read as -the connection element is articulated-.
Claim 3 recites “its free end” in the penultimate line. What “its” refers to is unclear. The limitation has been read as -a free end-.
Claim 3 recites “the holding point of the corresponding drive disk” in the penultimate line. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation has been read as -the corresponding holding point-.
Claim 4 recites “the connection element” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation The limitation has been read as -each connection element-.
Claim 4 recites “the radius that” and “the radius of” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. The limitations have been read as -a radius that- and -a radius of-.
Claim 8 recites “the tongue” and “the groove” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. The limitations have been read as -a tongue- and -a groove-.
Claim 10 recites “these have different diameters” in line 3. What structure has different diameters is unspecified and indefinite. The limitation has been read as -these motors-.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lasalle (US 20060104160).
Regarding claim 1, Lassalle teaches a display of a device (title) for representing a unit of time ([0001]), wherein the display of the unit of time comprises partial segments, which change, of circular disks (abstract) that rotate in the same direction ([0021]: “disk 1a rotates in a clockwise direction…disk 2 is then rotated in a similar clockwise direction”) within one another (abstract: “said disks being superposed and interleaved”), in a direction of rotation about a common axis ([0002]), which segments together to form a full circle (Fig. 5), and the circular disks differ from one another optically (1-2 in Fig. 5), wherein
three circular disks ([0002]: “two or more disks”), each having a bearing point (Figs. 1, 3: where the centers of the disks mount on the shaft 5-6), are provided,
the three circular disks have essentially the same radius (Figs. 3, 5),
each of the three circular disks has a slot ([0021]: “edge” of each disk) extending from its outer circumference U to the bearing point (1a, 2a in Fig. 1),
the three circular disks (2, 3, 4) are helically inserted (abstract: “helical”) into one another by way of the respective slots and come to lie on top of one another (Figs. 3, 5) and, independently of one another, can be rotated by way of the common axis (abstract: “selectively rotate one or other of the disks”), in such a manner that these disks are interlaced with one another in a single helical stretch (abstract, Fig. 3),
wherein the three circular disks can be individually driven (abstract: “each disk being independently rotatable”) and controlled at least indirectly, in each instance.
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 disklosed 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 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasalle.
Regarding claim 2, Lassalle discloses (Fig. 3) the display according to claim 1, wherein
two drive disks (30-31) are provided,
each drive disk rotates about the axis (5-6),
each drive disk has at least one holding point (where 30-31 connects to 5-6)
each drive disk and corresponding holding point are arranged in a plane (Fig. 3c)
each drive disk can be driven by way of a drive element (20-23), wherein the drive element can be controlled (abstract: “drive means adapted to selectively rotate”),
wherein each circular disk (1-2) is coupled with a different drive disk (30-31),
each coupling of the circular disk and drive disk is provided by way of a connection element (5-6) which is arranged on one side of each slot (Fig. 1: 5-6 connects to one side of each slot 1a-2a)
the connection elements, in a top view of the circular disks, are arranged at a radial distance from one another ([0025] and Fig. 3c: 2 connects to 6, which has a different radius than that of 5, which connects to 1).
Lasalle does not show a third drive disk, such that the third disk rotates about the axis, has a holding point, is arranged in a plane with the holding point, can be driven by a controllable drive element, and is coupled to a third of the three circular disks, so that the coupling is provided by way of a connection element arranged on one side of the third circular disk’s slot and the connection element is arranged at a radial distance from the other two connection elements in a top view.
Lasalle teaches three circular disks (abstract: “two or more”), and also shows in an embodiment (Fig. 3) that each circular disk of the embodiment has an associated drive disk, holding point, coupling, and connection element (see above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a third drive disk, holding point, coupling, and connection element to Lasalle’s three circular disks, as suggested by Lasalle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that Lasalle’s device can independently control each circular disk in accordance with Lasalle’s intended use (abstract: “each disk being independently rotatable”).
Regarding claim 3, Lasalle discloses (Figs. 1, 3) the display according to claim 2, wherein the connection element (5-6) of the each circular disk (1-2) extends from the one side of each slot (1a, 2a) on which the connection element is articulated, beyond the slot (Fig. 1: each element 5-6 extends from the contact point with 1a-2a downwards), counter to the direction of rotation (Fig. 1: 6-7 form an arc of contact points with 1a-2a at the centers of 1-2 such that the contact areas may be considered opposite the direction of rotation) and is attached, with a free end, to each holding point (where 5-6 attaches to 30-31).
Regarding claim 4, Lasalle discloses (Figs. 1, 3, 5) the display according to claim 3, wherein each connection element (5-6), in a top view, has a partial segment of a circle (Fig. 5 shows the centers of 1-2 is a circle such that 5-6 contacting 1-2 in Fig. 1 forms a partial circle segment of connection), and has a radius that corresponds to a radius of each holding point (32, 33, 34) from the axis (radii of 5-6 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Lasalle discloses (Fig. 3) the display according to claim 2, wherein the drive disks (30-31) can rotate clockwise. Paragraph [0022] discloses that disks 1-2 rotate clockwise, so drive disks 30-31 driving 1-2 must also rotate clockwise.
Regarding claim 6, Lasalle discloses (Fig. 3) the display according to claim 2, wherein the drive disks (30-31) are connected to drive sleeves (5-6), and the drive sleeves (5-6) are guided in one another in such a manner (Fig. 3—the sleeves 5-6 are coaxial) that they are arranged with rotation symmetry relative to the axis (Fig. 3), and each drive sleeve (5-6) is coupled, at least indirectly, to a drive means (20, 22).
Regarding claim 7, Lasalle discloses (Fig. 3) the display according to claim 2, wherein the drive disks (30-31) are arranged in a plane (plane of 30, plane of 31) and are coupled to one another (by 5) so as to rotate about the axis (5-6), by way of guide elements (5-6).
Regarding claim 9, Lasalle discloses (Fig. 3) the display according to claim 7, wherein each drive disk (30-31) can be driven directly (by 20, 22) using a drive means (20, 22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 8, the prior art does not show or suggest drive disks arranged in a plane and coupled to one another by tongue/groove connections, wherein a tongue is arranged to slide in a groove, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not show or suggest torque motors with different diameters so as to be inserted into one another, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disklosure. Pincemy (US 4939708) discloses a clock comprising helically arranged disks (abstract). Mayer (US 2785530), Emtyazi (US 6683821) cited by Applicant show clock devices comprising disks helically inserted into one another.
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
Prosecution Insights