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 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 1-12 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 claims 1 and 11, the phrase "for example" 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).
The term “several” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” 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. The number of turns is unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "intended to be mounted on the balance cock" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is part of the claimed invention. Claims 2-12 are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “intended to receive an outside end of the strip” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is part of the claimed invention. Claim 4 is rejected for inheriting the deficiency of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “is intended to extend at least beyond the penultimate coil” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “the penultimate coil”, “the extended position” and “the contracted position” lack proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, “the inner wall” and “the outer wall” lack antecedent basis. It appears this claim should depend from claim 4.
As far as understood by the Examiner, the rejection stands as follows:
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monnin, US 3,262,261.
Regarding claim 1, Monnin discloses a stud-holder for a regulating member of a horological movement (Fig 1), the regulating member comprising an inertial mass, for example a balance, a balance spring (3) comprising a strip wound about itself in several turns, and a balance cock (1), the stud-holder (2) comprising a main body intended to be mounted on the balance cock, and a stud (5) mounted on the main body in a first direction, characterised in that the stud-holder comprises an arm (2, extending from right to left) extending from the stud, the arm being directed in a second direction under the main body, the second direction forming a non-zero angle with the first direction, so as to pass at least in part beneath a balance spring held by the stud (Figures 1 and 2), when the stud-holder is mounted on the regulating member.
Regarding claim 2, Monnin discloses the second direction is substantially perpendicular (Fig 1, arm 2 extends right to left, the first direction is a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 3, Monnin discloses the stud (5) comprises a notch (8) intended to receive an outside end of the strip (3).
Regarding claim 4, Monnin discloses the notch (8) comprises an inner wall (10) and an outer wall (9), with the arm (2) extending from the inner wall.
Regarding claim 5, Monnin discloses the arm (2) is oriented radially towards the axis of the regulating member (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Monnin discloses the main body comprises a radial member on which the stud is mounted (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Monnin discloses the arm is elongated in a longitudinal direction (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Monnin discloses the arm has the shape of a substantially flat tab (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Monnin discloses the arm is intended to extend at least beyond the penultimate coil of the balance spring towards the centre of the balance spring, when the balance spring is in the extended position, preferably when it is in the contracted position (Fig 1 shows the arm two extending at least beyond the penultimate coil).
Regarding claim 10, Monnin shows the inner wall (10) is longer than the outer wall (9, Fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Monnin discloses a regulating member for a horological movement, the regulating member comprising an inertial mass, for example a balance (1), a balance spring (3) comprising a strip wound about itself in several turns, wherein the regulating member further comprises the stud-holder (2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Monnin discloses a horological movement comprising the regulating member according to claim 11.
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