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. 3 and 7, elements “143”, “143A”, and “143B” have been used to designate “a pallet fork arm”
fig. 3 and 7, elements“143” and “143C” have both been used to designate a “pallet fork rod”
fig. 6, element “247” does not appear in the specification
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 term “silicon-made”, as used in claim 1, is being interpreted to mean “made of silicon”.
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 1-4 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. An example of such an error is found in claim 1 (ln. 8-10) which recites “a shaft of the fourth wheel and pinion is applied a biasing force by an elastic member in an axial direction toward a side where the second hand is attached.” For the purposes of compact prosecution, the above phrase will be interpreted to mean “a biasing force is applied to a shaft of the fourth wheel and pinion by an elastic member in an axial direction towards an end portion of the shaft to which the second hand is attached.”
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim 1, the term “ganging pin” is used by the claim to mean “escape wheel shaft,” while the accepted meaning is “a hardware connector or alignment rod used to securely join, link, or lock modular items.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the term “ganging pin” will be interpreted to mean “escape wheel shaft”.
Claim 2, the phrase “a step provided in the middle of the shaft” is indefinite, as it is unclear which dimension of the shaft is being referred to as “the middle”. Based on a review of the drawings, it appears that the ‘step’ is located on an end section of the shaft, not the middle as claimed.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compagnie des Montres Longines (CH 209678, hereinafter Longines) in view of Funakawa (US 20210149343, hereinafter Funakawa).
Regarding claim 1, Longines teaches “an escapement including a … escape wheel (11) and a configuration in which an hour hand (21), a minute hand (19), and a second (23) hand are collected at one place (the hands are arranged coaxially), wherein a biasing force is applied to a shaft of the fourth wheel (24) and pinion (27) by an elastic member (28) in an axial direction towards an end portion of the shaft to which the second hand is attached (the elastic member (28) applies said biasing force towards the dial side of the timepiece).”
However, Longines fails to teach “a silicon-made escape wheel”.
Funakawa teaches “a silicon-made escape wheel (100)”.
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 shock absorbing elastic member and fourth wheel shaft and second hand attached thereto with the escapement comprising a silicon escape wheel of Funakawa according to known methods to predictably create a silicon escapement for a mechanical watch wherein shocks to the timepiece are dissipated by the elastic member to prevent damage to the escape wheel.
Conclusion
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