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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2024-09-20 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Reference JP2020030092 was improperly scanned and is missing text. It may have been scanned in grayscale instead of black-and-white.
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: “GEAR ASSEMBLY AND TIMPIECE WITH WASHER, COUNTERBORE, AND ESCAPE GROOVE.”
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet et al. (US 20110005055).
Regarding claim 1, Gigandet discloses (Fig. 4a) a gear assembly, comprising: a shaft (10) with a gearwheel (18, [0019]); a tube (12); and a washer (16) interposed between the shaft and the tube in an axial direction of the shaft (Fig. 2b), wherein the washer has a higher hardness than the tube. Paragraph [0017] discloses that the washer may be metal, and [0034] discloses that the tube (“cup”) is plastic.
Gigandet does not show in this embodiment the tube and shaft being discrete components so that the shaft is inserted into the tube.
Gigandet teaches in another embodiment (Figs. 2a-2b) a tube (12, 26) into which a shaft (28) is inserted.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gigandet’s Fig. 4a embodiment so that its tube and shaft are two separate components, as taught by Gigandet in Fig. 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create an assembly with parts that are more easily replaced and fixed.
Regarding claim 2, Gigandet discloses (Fig. 4a) the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the tube (12) has a counterbore (recess similar to 14 in Fig. 1a; [0022]) on an end surface in the axial direction, and the washer (16) is received in the counterbore (Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 3, Gigandet discloses the gear assembly according to claim 2, wherein the tube has an escape groove (32 in Fig. 4a) in a middle position on an outer peripheral side of a bottom surface of the counterbore ([0024]: “cavities 32…discharging next to the washer 16”).
Gigandet does not show the escape groove being in a corner position.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Gigandet’s escape groove being in a corner position requires only shifting the groove from its middle position to the corner.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the groove’s location from the middle position shown in Gigandet to a corner position of the counterbore, because absent any criticality, such a change is only considered to be an obvious modification that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to provide using routine experimentation since the courts have held that there is no invention in shifting the position if the operation of the device would not be thereby modified. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04.VI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as an equivalent and predictable solution for discharging the washer.
Regarding claim 4, Gigandet discloses (Fig. 4a) the gear assembly according to claim 3, wherein the escape groove (32) in the tube (12) is provided so as to be recessed in the axial direction of the shaft. Fig. 4a shows that the groove recessed in the axial direction of the shaft.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Villar et al. (US 20140328149).
Regarding claims 7-9, Gigandet discloses the gear assembly according to claims 1-3, respectively.
Gigandet does not show the washer being made of silicon.
Villar teaches a silicon washer ([0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Gigandet’s silicon material for silicon, as taught by Villar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known material for manufacturing functional washers for gears.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Villar as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Delizee et al. (US 20200019122) and Carreno et al. (US 20200371476).
Regarding claim 11, Gigandet discloses the gear assembly according to claim 7.
The combination of Gigandet and Villar does not show that the shaft and the tube are made of metal, the tube having a lower hardness than the shaft.
Delizee discloses a shaft made of metal with a hardness of at least 450 HV (abstract).
Carreno discloses a tube made of metal with a hardness of 250 Hv ([0053]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed Gigandet’s shaft and tube out of metals such that the shaft is harder than the tube, as taught by Delizee and Carreno. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this construction as known materials that predictable yield functional, durable timepiece components.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Villar and Boulenguiez (US 20140328150).
Regarding claim 12, Gigandet discloses (Fig. 4a) the gear assembly according to claim 2, wherein the washer (16), while received in the counterbore (Fig. 4a), is fixed in the counterbore by press-fitting (16 is press-fit by 18).
Gigandet does not show the washer being made of silicon.
Villar teaches a silicon washer ([0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Gigandet’s silicon material for silicon, as taught by Villar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known material for manufacturing functional washers for gears.
The combination of Gigandet and Villar does not show the washer being press-fit by an end portion of the tube on a side having the counterbore.
Boulenguiez teaches (Fig. 1) a washer (14) press-fit by an end portion of a tube (2) on a side having a counterbore (Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that to press-fit Gigandet’s washer 16 with the tube 12 only requires reducing the width of the counterbore.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have press-fit Gigandet’s washer by an end portion of Gigandet’s tube on a side having the counterbore, as taught by Boulenguiez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to securely hold the washer. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that such a change in relative dimensions, without any criticality, would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Villar and Boulenguiez as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Delizee and Carreno.
Regarding claim 13, Gigandet in view of Villar and Boulenguiez discloses the gear assembly according to claim 12.
The combination of Gigandet, Villar, and Boulenguiez does not show the shaft and the tube being made of metal and the tube having a lower hardness than the shaft.
Delizee discloses a shaft made of metal with a hardness of at least 450 HV (abstract).
Carreno discloses a tube made of metal with a hardness of 250 Hv ([0053]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed Gigandet’s shaft and tube out of metals such that the shaft is harder than the tube, as taught by Delizee and Carreno. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this construction as known materials that predictably yield functional, durable timepiece components.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Greubel (US 20110044141).
Regarding claims 14-16, Gigandet discloses a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly according to claims 1-3, respectively ([0005]: “pivot organ”). The gear assembly comprises a gearwheel ([0019]) that must mesh with at least another gear, thus forming a wheel train mechanism.
Gigandet does not disclose a timepiece, comprising: a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly; and a case that houses the wheel train mechanism.
Greubel discloses a timepiece, comprising: a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly ([0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Gigandet’s gear assembly in a timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Gigandet’s assembly in this way to fulfill the assembly’s purpose as a timekeeping element ([0002] of Gigandet).
The combination of Gigandet and Greubel does not show the timepiece comprising a case that houses the wheel train mechanism.
Mechanical clocks and watches are timepieces that have cases that housing at least a wheel train mechanism.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a case in Gigandet and Greubel’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make provision to create a timepiece that is protected from damage.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Villar et al as applied to claim 7., and further in view of Greubel.
Regarding claim 18, Gigandet discloses a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly according to claim 7 ([0005]: “pivot organ”). The gear assembly comprises a gearwheel ([0019]) that must mesh with at least another gear, thus forming a wheel train mechanism.
Gigandet does not disclose a timepiece, comprising: a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly; and a case that houses the wheel train mechanism.
Greubel discloses a timepiece, comprising: a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly ([0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Gigandet’s gear assembly in a timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Gigandet’s assembly in this way to fulfill the assembly’s purpose as a timekeeping element ([0002] of Gigandet).
The combination of Gigandet and Greubel does not show the timepiece comprising a case that houses the wheel train mechanism.
Mechanical clocks and watches are timepieces that have cases that housing at least a wheel train mechanism.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a case in Gigandet and Greubel’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make provision to create a timepiece that is protected from damage.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gigandet in view of Villar and Boulenguiez as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Greubel.
Regarding claim 19, Gigandet discloses a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly according to claim 12 ([0005]: “pivot organ”). The gear assembly comprises a gearwheel ([0019]) that must mesh with at least another gear, thus forming a wheel train mechanism.
Gigandet does not disclose a timepiece, comprising: a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly; and a case that houses the wheel train mechanism.
Greubel discloses a timepiece, comprising: a wheel train mechanism that includes the gear assembly ([0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Gigandet’s gear assembly in a timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Gigandet’s assembly in this way to fulfill the assembly’s purpose as a timekeeping element ([0002] of Gigandet).
The combination of Gigandet and Greubel does not show the timepiece comprising a case that houses the wheel train mechanism.
Mechanical clocks and watches are timepieces that have cases that housing at least a wheel train mechanism.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a case in Gigandet and Greubel’s timepiece. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make provision to create a timepiece that is protected from damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 10, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 5, Thuet (US 20220349473) discloses (Fig. 4) an escape groove (26) in a corner for a circular membrane (12).
The prior at does not show or suggest a shaft with an escape groove in a corner portion provided between the shaft and a downward surface of a large-diameter portion of the shaft that contacts a washer, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moille et al. (US 20260126758) discloses a gear assembly comprising a timepiece staff and tube (Fig. 1).
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
/EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights