Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/919,700

DEVICE FOR DETERMINING THE POSITION OF A HAND OF A WATCH

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 18, 2024
Priority
Dec 22, 2023 — EU 23220049.3
Examiner
COLLINS, JASON M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
ETA SA Manufacture Horlogère Suisse
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
391 granted / 523 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
527
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 523 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The objected to language is “comprising”. Claim Objections Claims 1, 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, “the position” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 1, “the functional elements” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 1, “the operation” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 15, “according to the claim 1” should be “according to claim 1”. In claim 18, “the other layers” lacks antecedent basis. 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 1-20 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 “such a dial” however a dial has already been recited. If this recitation is the same dial it should instead be “the dial”. If this recitation is a second dial, then the later references to “said dial” or “the dial” are indefinite because it is unclear which dial is being referred to. Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending from claim 1. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 13-17 recite the limitation “stack of thin layers”. The term “thin” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how to determine which layers in the prior art qualify as “thin”. Therefore, this will be read as “a stack of layers”. Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the stack of thin layers of material consists of a first layer”. It is unclear what the closed language “consists” is intended to claim here. The stack of thin layers can’t consist of only a first layer because the claim recites more than one layer. The first layer can’t consist only of a visible face of the dial because the claim also uses the open language “comprising” regarding the features of the first layer. Regarding claim 11, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. 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 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Surmely, US 2021/0191334. Regarding claim 1, Surmely discloses a dial of a watch comprising a device for determining the position of at least one hand of this watch (Fig 1), such a dial comprising a visible face and a hidden face (a hidden face being a side opposite the visible face), said dial being formed by a stack of thin layers of material extending between these two faces, each of said layers comprising one or more of the functional elements included in said determination device - at least one light-detecting element (224a), - at least a first light source (228) and at least a second light source (LED, [0137]), - a stand-alone power supply unit comprising a photovoltaic module (solar cell 54A), and - a control unit (48, 48A, 48B) for managing the operation of each light source and of said at least one light-detecting element. Regarding claim 2, Surmely discloses a through-hole configured to receive an arbor intended to carry said at least one hand of the watch (Fig 20). Regarding claim 3, Surmely discloses the stack of thin layers of material consists of a first layer provided with the visible face of the dial, and the first layer comprising said at least one light-detecting element and the first and second light sources (Fig 3). Regarding claim 4, Surmely discloses the stack of thin layers includes a second layer comprising the photovoltaic module (see [0206]). Regarding claim 5, Surmely discloses said at least one first light source and said at least one light-detecting element are arranged so that a light beam emitted by said at least one first light source is reflected by said at least one hand towards said at least one light-detecting element (Fig 3). Regarding claim 6, Surmely discloses said at least one first light source is configured to emit a light beam towards a reflective area of said at least one hand, said reflective area being configured to reflect this light beam towards said at least one light-detecting element (Fig 3). Regarding claim 7, Surmely discloses said at least one first light source is configured to emit a light beam towards a reflective area of said at least one hand, said reflective area being configured to reflect this light beam towards said at least one light-detecting element, the reflective area comprising an inclined reflective surface which is formed in a lower face of said at least one hand (Fig 5B). Regarding claim 8, Surmely discloses said at least one first light source is configured to emit a light beam towards a reflective area of said at least one hand, said reflective area being configured to reflect this light beam towards said at least one light-detecting element, the reflective area comprising a diffraction grating formed in a lower face of said at least one hand, said grating being configured to reflect a light beam towards said at least one light-detecting element (Fig 5A, [0070]). Regarding claim 9, Surmely discloses said at least one first light source is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser source (VCSEL, [0069]). Regarding claim 10, Surmely discloses said at least one second light source is capable of generating a visual message according to the determined position of said at least one hand (second light source generates the message that the accumulator must be recharged [0137]). Regarding claim 11, Surmely discloses said first layer is configured such that light radiation, in particular solar radiation and light radiation emitted by the first and second light sources, can fully or partially pass therethrough (such that solar cell 54a functions correctly). Regarding claim 12, Surmely discloses the second layer comprises a substrate on which the photovoltaic module is printed (solar cell 54A [0206]). Regarding claim 13, Surmely discloses said photovoltaic module is arranged on an active area of said second layer, said area being configured to receive light rays originating from the first layer of the stack of thin layers (see [0206] and [0207] the solar cell receives light in order to function). Regarding claim 14, Surmely discloses the stack of thin layers includes a third layer comprising an electrical energy accumulator constituting the stand-alone power supply unit (accumulator 56, [0135]). Regarding claim 15, Surmely discloses the stack of thin layers includes a third layer comprising an electrical energy accumulator constituting the stand-alone power supply unit, the third layer comprising a substrate on which the electrical energy accumulator is printed (accumulator 56, [0135]). Regarding claim 16, Surmely discloses the stack of thin layers comprises a fourth layer forming the hidden face of the dial comprising the control unit (Fig 1, control unit 48 and [0028]). Regarding claim 17, Surmely discloses the stack of thin layers comprises a third layer comprising the hidden face of the dial comprising the control unit (48B) and an electrical energy accumulator (56) constituting the stand-alone power supply unit (Fig 16). Regarding claim 19, Surmely discloses a watch comprising a dial according to claim 1 (abstract). Regarding claim 20, Surmely discloses the watch has a mechanical or electromechanical horological movement (abstract). 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surmely in view of Kinugawa, US 2020/0161488. Regarding claim 18, Surmely does not explicitly disclose the material of the dial and therefore does not explicitly disclose the first layer in the stack of layers is rigid compared the other layers. Kinugawa discloses a dial made from a light transmissive ceramic [0054]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a light transmissive ceramic dial in Surmely because ceramics provide a rigid plate for structural support and have generally favorable aesthetics. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3994. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM. 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. /JASON M COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831 /EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748383
METHOD FOR TREATING A BALANCE SPRING FOR A HOROLOGICAL MOVEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12736926
AUXILIARY PRECISION TIMEKEEPER FOR GPS RECEIVER
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12730411
FLEXIBLE GUIDE WITH ADJUSTABLE TRANSLATION TABLE FOR ROTARY RESONATOR MECHANISM, IN PARTICULAR OF A HOROLOGICAL MOVEMENT
4y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12704814
MOVEMENT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12704817
WEARABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING ELECTROPHORETIC ELEMENT
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+13.0%)
2y 9m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 523 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month