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.
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.
Claim 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 “intended to drive a first and a second display of a time value” and the phrase "intended to" 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).
Regarding Claim 1, it recites the limitation “said click wheel being movable in a plane orthogonal to its axis of rotation when the control member is operated” and it is not clearly defined what element/limitation is referred to by “its”. If it is the axis of rotation of the click wheel an amendment introducing this limitation such as “said click wheel being rotatable about an axis of rotation and movable in a plane orthogonal to the axis of rotation” is recommended. The indefiniteness of this limitation is also connected to claim 13 reciting “wherein the guide structure is configured to guide the click wheel rotatably about an axis passing through the centre of the driving wheel set”.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and are rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites the limitation “the toothing of the second display mechanism” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 introduces a toothing of the second display mechanism, however claim 9 depends from claim 1 which does not introduce this limitation.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and is rejected therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, prior art does not teach or suggest a horological movement with “the first display mechanism including a click mechanism having a click wheel capable of kinematically linking the driving wheel set and a display wheel carrying the first display so as to transmit the rotation of the driving wheel set to the first display, said click wheel being movable in a plane orthogonal to its axis of rotation when the control member is operated to modify the position of the first display, so as to interrupt the kinematic link between the first display mechanism and the driving wheel set” in addition to the requirement of the other limitations of claim 1.
Donzel et al. (WO 2019175687 A1) discloses closely related prior art including a horological movement comprising a first (1) and to a second display (2) mechanism respectively intended to drive a first (hours of a second time zone) and a second display (200, the date for example) of a time value [0066], a mechanism for adjusting the position of these displays [fig. 1, fig. 4] including a sliding-gear assembly (sliding wheel (3) comprising two intermediate wheels (40, 30)) and a control member (60) adapted to assume an adjusting position wherein the control member is engaged with the sliding-gear assembly and wherein: when urged in a first direction of rotation (F1), the control member drives the sliding-gear assembly into a first correction position wherein the sliding-gear assembly is able to cooperate with the first display mechanism so as to modify the position of the first display [figs. 2-3], and when urged in a second direction of rotation (F2), the control member drives the sliding-gear assembly into a second correction position wherein the sliding-gear assembly is able to cooperate with the second display mechanism so as to modify the position of the second display [fig. 1].
Buiyumieru et al. (JP S6162890 A) also discloses a timepiece movement including a similar sliding-gear assembly (37, 38, 39, 40) used to adjust the position of a first display (hour/minute hands) and second display (date disk) by selectively engaging with either a first display mechanism (21) or a second display mechanism (46). Buiyemieru also disclose an additional click wheel (24, 25), however this click wheel does not interrupt the kinematic link and is instead used for a speed reduction mechanism.
Adding a click wheel to the other limitations of claim 1 that is capable of both (1) kinematically linking the driving wheel set and the first display to transmit the rotation of the driving wheel and (2) move in a plane orthogonal to an axis of rotation of the click wheel so as to interrupt the kinematic link is not taught or suggested in the relevant prior art in order to modify a horological movement with the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and would also be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Citation of Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vuillemin et al. (EP 3486733 A1) discloses a control device comprises an external movable member and a wheel set comprising a toothed wheel and a movable support on which the toothed wheel is rotatably mounted, the toothed wheel being kinematically connected. the external movable member, so that the latter drives the toothed wheel and a selector comprising an external control member manually switchable between two predefined positions, and a positioning lever arranged to be controlled by the external control member to switch in one direction or in the other when the external control member switches, the positioning lever having an elastic and flexible arm and being further arranged to act on the player so as to mesh the toothed gear selectively with one or the other of two mobiles.
Ferenczy (US 5384755 A) discloses a timepiece that comprises: a horometric movement including a motor pinion or intermediate wheel, a crown wheel with interior teeth associated with a first display system, such as a date display, and a jumper spring, a driving wheel set including a drive wheel controlled by the motor pinion and transmitting a motor couple received from the motor pinion to the crown through a salient tooth, such wheel set additionally including a hub which is mounted to rotate freely relative to the movement and which elastically supports the drive wheel through an elastic arm, such timepiece being characterized in that the elastic arm which supports the drive wheel has a basically form winding around the hub, while the drive wheel meshes directly with the motor pinion.
Vuillemez et al. (CH 714267 A1) discloses a correction device for a timepiece, comprising a differential gear having a first input, a second input and an output, in which: the first input is arranged to be driven by a watch movement; the second input is kinematically connected to a corrective gear extending from a control member and comprising a clutch for establishing and interrupting the kinematic connection between said control and said second input; the output is arranged to drive a display device for said watch movement, the angular position of said output being defined as a function of the angular position of said first input as well as that of said second input, characterized in that said correction device further comprises a memory cam in desmodromic connection with said second input, in that said memory cam is subjected to a return force provided by an elastic member tending to maintain said memory cam in at least one predetermined angular position when said kinematic connection between said control member and said second input is interrupted, said elastic member being further arranged to allow a rotation of said second inlet under the control of said control member when said kinematic connection is established during the m implementation of the correction device, and in that said correction device is arranged such that the incidence of the rotation of the second input during a correction on the angular position of the output is canceled when said memory cam is in said at least one predetermined angular position.
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