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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 9, reference characters "8" and "81" have both been used to designate “a planar portion for receiving a metal bezel”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The terms “bezel” and “exterior” are being interpreted to mean “exterior member” in accordance with the specification para. [0003]. The term “movable space” is being interpreted to mean a deformable space in accordance with the specification para. [0029] (“gap C”) and fig. 10A of the illustrations.
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 3, 9, and 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 3 and 9 recite the limitation "the other end side" in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “each of the metal bezels being the metal bezel”. This renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of the statement.
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaru, et al. (us 6762976, hereinafter Tamaru) in view of Kita, et al. (US 20200103833, hereinafter Kita).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaru teaches “a case (220); an exterior that is made from a metal material and is externally mounted to the case (221); and a buffer (237/243)that is interposed between the exterior and the case, wherein a movable space (246) that is able to absorb displacement of the exterior is provided between the exterior and the case, and a first region in which the buffer is provided and a second region in which the case is provided via the movable space are located inside of the exterior (the case and buffer are contained within the exterior).”
However, Kita fails to teach that the case contains “An electronic device”. Instead, Kita teaches a generic “movement” (238).
Kita teaches a ruggedized case for “An electronic device (1)” comprising an exterior and shock absorbing buffer structures.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the protective structure and case of Tamaru with the electronic device of Kita via known methods with the expected result of obtaining an electronic device with a ruggedized case structure to protect sensitive electronic components from excessive physical shocks.
Regarding claim 2, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the electronic device according to claim 1. Tamaru further teaches “The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein an entire side surface of the case is covered by the exterior or the buffer (the entire side of the case is covered by the buffer (237/243) and the exterior (221)).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the exterior and buffer structure and case of Tamaru with the electronic device of Kita to protect the device from physical shock.
Regarding claim 4, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the device according to claim 1. Tamaru further teaches “the exterior is a metal bezel (221 is made of metal (col. 12, ln. 1-2).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the electronic device with an exterior made of metal to give the device a luxury or upscale appearance.
Regarding claim 5, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the device according to claim 1. Tamaru further teaches “the buffer is a resin bezel (buffers 237/243 are made of resin (col. 12, ln. 33)”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the buffer for the electronic device of a resin material to distribute the force of impacts to protect the device from physical shock.
Regarding claim 6, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the device according to claim 1. Kita further teaches “an antenna (10) is provided within the case.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an antenna within the case of the electronic device to allow the electronic device to communicate via radio frequency (RF) signals.
Regarding claim 7, Tamaru teaches “a case (220); an exterior that is made from a metal material (221) and is externally mounted to the case; and a buffer (237/243) that is interposed between the exterior and the case, wherein a movable space (246) that is able to absorb displacement of the exterior is provided between the exterior and the case.”
However, Tamaru fails to teach that the case contains “An electronic timepiece” or that the timepiece comprises “a display on which a measured point in time is displayed”.
Kita teaches “An electronic timepiece (1)” comprising an exterior and shock absorbing buffer structures and “a display (25) on which a measured point in time is displayed (displaying the time is an inherent function of a timepiece)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the protective structure and case of Tamaru with the electronic timepiece comprising a display of Kita via known methods with the expected result of obtaining an electronic timepiece with a ruggedized case structure to protect sensitive electronic components from excessive physical shocks.
Regarding claim 8, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the electronic device according to claim 7. Tamaru further teaches “an entire side surface of the case is covered by the exterior or the buffer (the entire side of the case is covered by the buffer (237/243) and the exterior (221))”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the exterior and buffer structure and case of Tamaru with the electronic timepiece of Kita to protect the device from physical shock.
Regarding claim 10, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the electronic device according to claim 7. Tamaru further teaches “the exterior is a metal bezel (221 is made of metal (col. 12, ln. 1-2).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the electronic timepiece with an exterior made of metal to give the device a luxury or upscale appearance.
Regarding claim 11, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the electronic device according to claim 7. Tamaru further teaches “the buffer is a resin bezel (buffers 237/243 are made of resin (col. 12, ln. 33)”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the buffer for the electronic timepiece of a resin material to distribute the force of impacts to protect the device from physical shock.
Regarding claim 12, the combined art of Tamaru and Kita makes obvious the electronic device according to claim 7. Kita further teaches “an antenna (10) is provided within the case.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an antenna within the case of the electronic timepiece to allow the device to communicate via RF signals.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ueno (US 20110096481) - Discloses a shock buffering structure for a wrist worn electronic device and timepiece. However, Ueno fails to disclose a metal exterior, a movable space arranged to absorb physical shocks, or that the device comprises an antenna.
Kawaoka, et al. (US 20130215560) - Discloses a shock buffering structure for a wrist worn electronic device and timepiece which provides a 'movable space' between the inner case and outer protective covering. However, Kawaoka vails to disclose a metal exterior or that the device comprises an antenna.
Sano (US 20190137590) - Discloses a ruggedized electronic device and timepiece comprising an antenna. However, Sano fails to disclose a metal exterior or "movable space" for absorbing shocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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.
/MICHAEL JAMES WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights