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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
112(f) invoked with presence of “Means”
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “retaining means arranged to prevent movement of the lever substantially in a second direction (D2)” but does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, to which this limitation is being interpreted to require is:
[0048] Preferably, these retaining means 25 include a flexible guide arranged between the lever and the rigid support 11 of the flexible element 5. Here between the lever and the rigid support 17.
112(f) not invoked despite presence of “Means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the spiral spring including means for adjusting its stiffness” but recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “prestressing means for applying a variable force or torque to the flexible element, so as to vary the stiffness of the flexible element” but recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “the spiral spring including means for adjusting its stiffness” and it is not distinctly claimed what is referred to by “its”. For purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as reciting “the spiral spring including means for adjusting the stiffness of the spiral spring”.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and are rejected therein.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kahrobaiyan (CH 718113 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kahrobaiyan discloses a spiral spring for a watch resonator mechanism [abstract], the spiral spring comprising:
a flexible strip (2) wound on itself in a plurality of turns [fig. 19], the strip having a predefined stiffness [0038, abstract], the spiral spring including means for adjusting its stiffness (5, 6) [fig. 19] [claim 1],
the adjustment means including a flexible element (5) arranged in series with the strip [fig. 19], the flexible element connecting one end of the said strip to a rigid support (53), so as to add additional stiffness to the strip [0010] [claim 1],
the flexible element having a stiffness greater than that of the strip [0038] [claim 1],
the adjustment means including prestressing means (6) for applying a variable force or torque to the flexible element, so as to vary the stiffness of the flexible element [0039] [claim 1], the prestressing means comprising a lever (81) connected to the flexible element and actuatable to transmit the force or the torque to the flexible element by an actuator (86) [fig. 19] [0064], the lever comprising an end (86) movable in a first direction (D1) [fig. 19]; and
retaining means including a flexible guide (elements between 61 and 82, 84, and 85) arranged between the lever and the rigid support of the flexible element 5 arranged to prevent movement of the lever substantially in a second direction (D2) [fig. 19].
Regarding Claim 2, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 1, and further discloses that the retaining means connect the rigid support (87, 73, 53 all acting as rigid support for the spiral spring) to the lever [fig. 19].
Regarding Claim 3, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 1, and further discloses that the retaining means include a flexible guide (elements between 61 and 82) [fig. 19].
Regarding Claim 4, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 3, and further discloses that wherein the flexible guide comprises a first translation table comprising two first flexible blades (83) and a first rigid part (75) [fig. 19].
Regarding Claim 5, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 4, and further discloses that the flexible guide comprises a second translation table arranged in series with the first translation table, the second translation table comprising two second flexible blades (72) and a second rigid part (71) [fig. 19].
Regarding Claim 6, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 3, and further discloses that the flexible guide comprises one single flexible blade (82). This one single flexible blade is part of the overall flexible guide, and because the limitation recites “comprises” and does not otherwise limit the flexible guide to being entirely this one single flexible guide the single flexible blade (82) meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 3, and further discloses that the flexible guide comprises a pair of uncrossed flexible blades (74) [fig. 19].
Regarding Claim 8, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 2, and further discloses that the retaining means comprise a second flexible lever (83) [fig. 19]. This element operates in conjunction with the first lever but can be itself viewed as a lever part. There are not required limitations for the second flexible lever other than it be that element, thus the second flexible lever (83) [fig. 19] meets the limitation.
Regarding Claim 9, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 1, and further discloses that the second direction (D2) is substantially perpendicular to the first direction (D1) of movement of the lever [fig. 19] (arrangement of the retaining means, particularly 84 and 85, substantially prevent movement of the lever 81 in an upper-right direction which would be represented by an arrow extending from 86 along 81 and substantially perpendicular to the arrows shown for directions D1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 1, and further discloses that the flexible element comprises a flexible blade [fig. 19] [0064].
Regarding Claim 11, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 1, and further discloses that the torque or the force is continuously adjustable by the prestressing means [0041] [claim 12].
Regarding Claim 12, Kahrobaiyan discloses the spiral spring according to claim 1, and further discloses a rotary resonator mechanism for a watch movement [claim 19] [0078], including an oscillating mass [claim 19], and comprising the spiral spring according to claim 1.
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hernandez et al. (US 20240126209 A1) recites very similar claim limitations to the present application and would have been used in a provision obviousness-type double patenting rejection but for the limitation “retaining means arranged to prevent movement of the lever substantially in a second direction (D2)” in claim 1 of the present application, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation required therein, which is not claimed or obvious over the claims of US App. 18/474,448.
Hernandez et al. (CH 719183 A2) discloses a balance-spring, in particular for a clock resonator mechanism, the balance-spring comprising a flexible strip having a predefined stiffness, the spiral spring comprising means for adjusting its stiffness, characterized in that the adjustment means comprise a single elongated flexible element arranged in series with the ribbon, the elongated flexible element connecting one end of said strip (2) to a fixed support, so as to add additional stiffness to the strip, the elongated flexible element preferably having a stiffness greater than that of the tape, the adjustment means comprising prestressing means for applying at least two different forces to the elongated flexible element, the first force being provided by a tensile force/ compression directed substantially in the longitudinal direction of the elongated flexible element, and the second force being provided either by a force directed substantially in a direction substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the elongated flexible element, or by a torque, preferably a bending moment, so as to vary the stiffness of the elongated flexible element.
Le Moal et al. (US 20220171335 A1) discloses a spiral spring for a timepiece resonator mechanism, the spiral spring extending substantially in a plane and including a flexible blade wound on itself in several turns and a setting device for modifying the effective length of the wound blade, the setting device including a clamp movable along at least one ending portion of the spiral spring, the clamp extending substantially in the plane of the spiral spring, the clamp including two bearing faces arranged on either side of the wound blade in a multiplicity of positions so as to define a variable effective length of the spiral spring, the clamp and the wound blade being linked to each other by a flexible element allowing the clamp and the bearing faces to be displaced along the wound blade.
Kahrobaiyan (JP 2022074020 A) discloses a flexible guide that comprises: a fixed supporting body; a movable element that can move with respect to the fixed supporting body; and at least one primary flexible strip that enables the movable element to move with respect to the fixed supporting body by bending the primary flexible strip so as to perform a rotation movement around a rotation center, the flexible guide includes at least a first translational motion structure that is arranged on a substantially same plane, and connected to one end of the primary flexible strip
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights