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 1-18 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 mechanical pivot having a main axis offset in the main plane with respect to the axis of rotation of at least one of the pivoting piece and the rigid piece”. Claim 1 also recites “the pivoting piece and the rigid piece respectively being mounted on said mechanical pivot”. These two recitations are in conflict. The main axis cannot reasonably be construed to be offset relative to an axis of rotation for an element that is definitionally mounted on said pivot.
Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and thus are rejected on the basis of dependency.
Regarding claims 14, 15, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 15-18 depend from claim 14 and thus are rejected on the basis of dependency.
Claim 4 recites “comprising openings to reduce their flexural rigidity, lighten their weight and/or control their deformation”. These are limitations relative to a hypothetical alternative and not descriptive of the element itself. Claim 4 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “openings to reduce its inertia and/or to activate a function”. The second part is indefinite because the structure of an opening does not activate a function. A portion of the recitation is missing. That is to say it is an incomplete thought/recitation. To reduce inertia is a limitation relative to a hypothetical alternative and not descriptive of the element itself. Claim 5 is therefore indefinite.
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the frame” claims 6 and 7.Claim 15 recites “second plane different from the main plane, for example parallel to the main plane”. This recitation is indefinite because one having ordinary skill in the art would regard movement in a parallel plane to correspond to the first plane.
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 1-6, 8-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philippe (EP 3582029).
With regard to claim 1 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism comprising in a main plane:
an actuating device (105),
a pivoting piece (107), arranged to pivot under the action of the actuating device around an axis perpendicular to the main plane (figure 3b shows the elements arranged on a plane),
a rigid piece (121a),
a first flexible blade (123) connecting the rigid piece to the pivoting piece (107),
a mechanical pivot (109) having a main axis offset in the main plane with respect to the axis of rotation of at least one of the pivoting piece and the rigid piece (figure 3b shows the element 123 has a different pivot from 109),
the pivoting piece (107) and the rigid piece (121a) respectively being mounted on said mechanical pivot (107 to 109 directly, 212 to 109 by way of 117a-117b), which preloads the first flexible blade and makes the assembly formed by the rigid piece and the first flexible blade bistable (figure 3b and figure 3a show stable positions), so that the rotating pivoting piece causes the bistable assembly to move in the main plane, from a first stable position, to a second stable position (abstract, figures 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 2 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to claim 1, wherein the pivoting piece is arranged to rotate also from a first stable position, to a second stable position (figures 3a and 3b show two stable positions), wherein when the pivoting piece-is in its first stable position, the bistable assembly is also in its first stable position, and when the pivoting piece is in its second stable position, the bistable assembly is also in its second stable position (figures 3a and 3b show the pivoting piece interacting with the control element 105 in two distinct positions and the corresponding stable position of the arms 121a and 121b.)
With regard to claim 3 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to claim 1, comprising two second preloaded flexible blades (spring 113 and elastic transverse arm 123), the rigid piece being arranged to move in the main plane with a translational movement (121a figures 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 4 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to of claim 1, the first and/or second flexible blade(s) comprising openings to reduce their flexural rigidity, lighten their weight and/or control their deformation (125a, 125b control deformation by being more rigid than the elastic connecting portion).
With regard to claim 5 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to of claim 1, the rigid piece comprising openings to reduce its inertia and/or to activate a function (125a, 125b control deformation by being more rigid than the elastic connecting portion).
With regard to claim 6 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to of claim 1, at least two pieces selected from the following form a monobloc piece: the rigid piece, the first flexible blade, the second flexible blade and the frame (113 and 107 are monobloc).
With regard to claim 8 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to claim 1, the rigid piece being arranged to move in the main plane with a rotational movement (121a figures 3a, 3b show the rotational movement).
With regard to claim 9 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism according to claim 1, comprising a coupling mechanism, wherein when the rigid piece (121a) is in a stable position, it is arranged to activate the coupling mechanism (103) in order to perform a coupling (figure 3b), and when the rigid piece-is in another stable position, it is arranged to deactivate the coupling mechanism in order to perform a decoupling (121a, 103 figure 3a).
With regard to claim 10 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism according to claim 9, wherein the rigid piece (121a) is arranged to directly activate the coupling mechanism (figure 3b) by coming into direct contact with said coupling mechanism (103 figure 3b).
With regard to claim 11 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism according to claim 9, wherein the rigid piece is arranged to indirectly activate the coupling mechanism (121a does not directly activate the coupling itself. It requires 121b. In the alternative element 125a is a rigid element which indirectly assists 121a).
With regard to claim 14 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism-according to claim 1, wherein the rigid piece is a first rigid piece (125a), wherein the actuating device is a first actuating device (121a), the watch mechanism comprising:
a second actuating device (125b),
a second rigid piece (121b),
wherein the second rigid piece is arranged to move under the action of the second actuating device-from a first stable position to a second stable position (figures 3a and 3b show the two stable positions), the movement of the second rigid piece enabling a function, for example a reset function, to be performed (split second measurement using 121a, 121b, and 103.)
With regard to claim 16 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism according to claim 14, wherein the second rigid piece is arranged to move in the main plane (the movement planes overlap figures 3a, 3b)
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Philippe (EP 3582029).
With regard to claim 12 Philippe discloses or teaches a watch mechanism according to claim 11, wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a pin (117a, 117b), the rigid piece (121) comprises a housing (125a) arranged to receive said pin, to activate the coupling mechanism to perform a coupling (by way of 123; the pin could also refer to the pivot center of 125a).To the extent the quoted language above can be construed to require the pin to be part of the rigid element sub section of the entire monobloc structure: 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 Philippe’s system to comprise a pin, the rigid piece comprises a housing arranged to receive said pin, to activate the coupling mechanism to perform a coupling. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a more direct and responsive engagement of the pin structure to the rigid arm while still employing the advantages of a flexible element 123. A reason for doing so would have been to reduce the number of required pins from two to one.
Claims 7, 15, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philippe (EP 3582029) in view of Meis (US 2004/0037171).
With regard to claim 7 Philippe does not disclose a watch mechanism-according to of claim 1, comprising means for fastening the rigid piece to the frame, said fastening means comprising pins, screws and/or an additional flexible blade.
Meis teaches a chronograph hands with stop arms figure 1 and reset cam figure 8 coaxial with the chrono wheel. Meis teaches attachment using pin 36.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 modify Philippe to comprise means for fastening the rigid piece to the frame, said fastening means comprising pins, screws and/or an additional flexible blade, as taught by Meis. The reason for doing so would have been to fix the pivot to the support frame to provide rotational permissible movement in conjunction with structure support and retention as taught by Meis.
With regard to claim 15 Philippe discloses a watch mechanism according to claim 14, wherein the second rigid piece (121b) is arranged to move in a second plane similar the main plane (the plane is lower than the plane for 121a and parallel figures 3a), for example parallel to the main plane (figures 3a, 3b).
Philippe does not teach the second plane different from the main plane.
Meis teaches a chronograph hands with stop arms figure 1 and reset cam figure 8 coaxial with the chrono wheel. 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 modify Philippe to comprise a part on a different plane, but parallel to the main plane to be an operable part consistent with the second rigid piece. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a reset heart cam to allow the measured value to be reset after reading thus allowing additional command and control of the function, as taught by Meis.
With regard to claim 17 (depends from claim 14) Philippe does not teach the claimed: the watch mechanism comprising: a second pivoting piece, arranged to pivot under the action of the first actuating device or of the second actuating device-around an axis perpendicular to the main plane,
a first flexible blade, connecting the second rigid piece to the second pivoting piece, a second flexible blade, connecting the second rigid piece to the frame, said mechanical pivot having a main axis offset in the main plane from the axis of rotation of the second pivoting piece, the second pivoting piece being mounted on said mechanical pivot, which preloads the first flexible blade and the second flexible blade and makes the second assembly formed by the second rigid piece-bistable, the first flexible blade and the second flexible blade, so that when the second pivoting piece-rotates, said second bistable assembly moves from a first stable position to a second stable position.
Meis teaches a double system for measuring two different values using the same basic principle of measurement/mechanical interaction. See figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Meis further teaches additional functions such as a heart cam and reset operations – figure 8.
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 modify Philippe to comprise a second pivoting piece, arranged to pivot under the action of the first actuating device or of the second actuating device-around an axis perpendicular to the main plane,
a first flexible blade, connecting the second rigid piece to the second pivoting piece, a second flexible blade, connecting the second rigid piece to the frame, said mechanical pivot having a main axis offset in the main plane from the axis of rotation of the second pivoting piece, the second pivoting piece being mounted on said mechanical pivot, which preloads the first flexible blade and the second flexible blade and makes the second assembly formed by the second rigid piece-bistable, the first flexible blade and the second flexible blade, so that when the second pivoting piece-rotates, said second bistable assembly moves from a first stable position to a second stable position, as taught in part by Meis. The reason for doing so would have been to measure two values concurrently and/or to add additional operational functions such as a reset, as taught by Meis.
As a matter of supplemental consideration see MPEP 2144.04 sub part VI B. and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this instance the providing of additional parts can be reasonably construed as providing more of the same feature for the same purpose and to the same ends as the first.
With regard to claim 18 (depends from claim 14) Philippe does not teach the claimed: a heart piece, the second rigid piece comprising at least one hammer portion, to actuate the heart piece.
Meis teaches a chronograph hands with stop arms figure 1 and reset cam figure 8 coaxial with the chrono wheel, and heart cam 29 figure 8.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 modify Philippe to comprise a heart piece, the second rigid piece comprising at least one hammer portion, to actuate the heart piece, as taught by Meis. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a reset heart cam to allow the measured value to be reset after reading thus allowing additional command and control of the function, as taught by Meis.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philippe (EP 3582029).
With regard to claim 13 (depends from claim 11) Philippe teaches a pin system 117a and 117b for cooperating with element 123 and two pivots 125a and 125b to effect the motion of the rigid pieces 121a and 121b. In this regard the pins pertain to element 107 and not to the rigid piece 121a, although 121a receives the pins. 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 reverse the operation such that the pin is part of the rigid portion and received by 107. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a simpler mounting protocol for assembly, to provide a better pin reception region using the structure of 115, and to reduce the number of required pins from 2 to 1. Furthermore doing so would involve the same principle of operation, but merely pertain to rearrangement of parts. As a matter of supplemental consideration see MPEP 2144.04 subsection VI C and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See section A as well regarding reversal of parts and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bron US 5113382 teaches a chronograph watch with a dual plane engagement structure figure 1 (prior art) and improvements thereto with reset heart cams (figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
323
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights