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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the rate of the balance spring” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis.
“the stiffness of the balance spring” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis.
“the main axis” in claim 4 lacks antecedent basis.
“the tip” in claim 5 lacks antecedent basis.
“the balance staff” in claim 11 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 1-13 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.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 recite the limitation "the flexible element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is confusion regarding the terms flexible and resilient. If the flexible element and the resilient element are the same element, then they should be referred to by a common name for clarity and consistency. For purposes of examination, the flexible element will be treated as the same as resilient element. Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
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, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Moal, US 20220171335.
Regarding claim 1, Le Moal discloses a regulating member for a horological movement comprising a balance [0024], a balance spring (2), a balance cock [0024], and an actuation system for adjusting the rate of the balance spring [0032], the balance spring comprising a coiled ribbon (wound blade 2) and means for adjusting the stiffness of the balance spring (clamp 3), which means are provided with a resilient element (flexible element 7) arranged in series with the coiled ribbon ([0034]-[0035]), the adjustment means comprising prestressing means (14) for applying a variable force or torque to the flexible element, wherein the actuation system comprises an eccentric (eccentric screw [0036]) actuating the prestressing means of the adjustment means.
Regarding claim 12, Le Moal discloses a horological movement, comprising the regulating member according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Le Moal discloses a timepiece comprising the horological movement according to claim 12.
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 2-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Moal, in view of Wiederrecht, US 10,180,659.
Regarding claim 2, Le Moal does not explicitly disclose the eccentric is rotatably mounted through the balance cock.
Wiederrecht shows eccentric (84) rotatably mounted through the balance cock (6) in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the eccentric taught by Le Moal through the balance cock to allow access to adjust the positioning of the eccentric and because it would be a routine and conventional practice as taught by Wiederrecht.
Regarding claim 3, Le Moal and Wiederrecht disclose the eccentric comprises a head (88) and a main body (86) extending from the head (Wiederrecht figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Le Moal and Wiederrecht disclose the eccentric further comprises a finger (82) extending from the main body (86), the finger being off-centred relative to the main axis of the main body of the eccentric (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, Le Moal and Wiederrecht disclose the head comprises a recess intended to receive the tip of a tool for actuating the eccentric (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, Le Moal and Wiederrecht disclose the actuation system comprises a stud-holder (12) comprising a stud on which the balance spring is mounted, the stud being mechanically linked to the resilient element of the balance spring. (See Wiederrecht, figures 1 and 2 and col. 1 lines 35 to col 2. Line 64)
11. The regulating member according to claim 1, wherein the stud-holder is arranged on the balance cock around a bearing on the balance staff (Wiederrecht figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed regulating member wherein the prestressing means comprise a movable first lever connected to the flexible element, with the eccentric being in contact with the lever in order to be able to actuate it.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights