DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…the control device being controlled by a train at least partly regulated by the first oscillator…..different from the first frequency” is not clear because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “a train” should be “the train” if referring back to previously define one according to antecedent basis requirement; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(ii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first oscillator”; if “the first oscillator” is referring back to previously defined “a mechanical first oscillator” then the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first oscillator” should be “the mechanical first oscillator”; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences; and (iii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first frequency”; if “the first frequency” is referring back to previously defined “a first predetermined frequency” then the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first frequency” should be “the first predetermined frequency” according to antecedent basis requirement; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2-10 are depending on the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “The system as claimed… a frequency selector device and the control device and/or the actuator device act(s) on a frequency selector device….the first frequency, a second frequency lower than the first frequency, and a third frequency higher than the first frequency.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “The system” should be “The regulating system” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “a frequency selector device and the control device and/or the actuator device act(s) on a frequency selector device” is unclear what is meant and also the second “a frequency selector device” should follow antecedent basis requirement; and
(iii). the third, fourth and fifth underlined portions of the clam limitation “the first frequency” should be consistent with the changes made to the claim 1 due to antecedent basis issue as stated above.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “the three oscillation frequencies” has insufficient antecedent basis. Note: Is the claim 3 supposed to be depending on claim 2, since the claim 2 includes “three oscillator frequencies”?
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “the selector device” has insufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “the first frequency” should be consistent with the changes made to the claim 1 due to antecedent basis issue as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitation “A timepiece movement comprising a regulating system as claimed in claim 1, and a train.” should be “A timepiece movement comprising the regulating system as claimed in claim 1.” according to antecedent basis requirement and remove “a train” since which has been defined in clam 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “A timepiece comprising a regulating system…” should be “A timepiece comprising the regulating system…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “…the control device being controlled by the train at least partly regulated by the first oscillator…” is not clear because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first oscillator”; if “the first oscillator” is referring back to previously defined “a mechanical first oscillator” then the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first oscillator” should be “the mechanical first oscillator”; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Dependent claims 12-20 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 11 as stated above because the dependent claims 12-20 are depending on the rejected independent claim 11.
Regarding claims 12-16, the claim limitation “The operating method…” in claims 12-16 should be “The method…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 13, the claim limitation “…a timepiece movement.” should be “…the timepiece movement.” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “…a timepiece movement.” should be “…the timepiece movement.” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (as best understood) as being anticipated by Tombez et al. (2018/0181073) (hereinafter “Tombez”).
Regarding claim 1, Tombez discloses a regulating system (Fig.1, 2, 5 and 6, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: a mechanical first oscillator (14 in Fig.1) designed to regulate at least partly a train (10) of a timepiece movement (2) driven by a drive system (8 in Fig.1; Note: according to Application’s specification on page 5, “barrel is a drive system”), a control device (58 in Fig.5, which is a part of 22 in Fig.2) configured to impose a main operating mode (operating mode when mechanical breaking device is not activated; please refer to Fig.5 and at least ¶ 72) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at a first predetermined frequency (frequency of 14 when braking is not applied; please refer to information related to at least Figs.5-7 and 9), the control device being controlled by a train (10) at least partly regulated by the first oscillator (14; since sensor 24 detects angular position of the balance (which is connected to train 10) and provides the detected data to the control device (58) and the control device regulate the mechanical first oscillator 14 as stated in ¶ 40), and an actuator device (36 and 39 in Fig.2) configured to command passage to an auxiliary operating mode (operating mode when the braking is activated) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at another predetermined frequency (frequency of 14 when the braking is applied; please refer to information related to at least Figs.5-7 and 9) different from the first frequency.
Regarding claim 7, Tombez discloses the regulating system comprises a counting device (formed by 23, 56, DIV1, DIV2, C1 and C2) including a second oscillator (formed by 23 and 56 in Fig.5) with a fourth frequency (frequency provided by 23 and 56) greater than the first frequency (frequency of 14; please refer to at least ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 9, Tombez discloses a timepiece movement (Fig.1) comprising: a regulating system as claimed in claim 1 (please refer to claim 1 above), and a train (10 in Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Tombez discloses a timepiece (Fig.1) comprising: a regulating system as claimed in claim 1 (please refer to claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 11, Tombez discloses a method of operating a regulating system for a timepiece movement (Fig.1, 2, 5 and 6, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), the regulating system (Fig.1) comprising a mechanical first oscillator (14) designed to regulate at least partly a train (10) of a timepiece movement (2) driven by a drive system (8 in Fig.1; Note: according to Application’s specification on page 5, “barrel is a drive system”), the method comprising at least one iteration of the following actions: operating in a main operating mode (operating mode when mechanical breaking device is not activated; please refer to Fig.5 and at least ¶ 72) in which the mechanical first oscillator (14) oscillates at a predetermined first frequency (frequency of 14 when braking is not applied; please refer to information related to at least Figs.5-7 and 9), modifying, by an actuator device (36 and 39 in Fig.2), a frequency of the mechanical first oscillator, operating in an auxiliary operating mode (operating mode when the braking is activated) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at a second frequency or at a third frequency (frequency of 14 when the braking is applied; please refer to information related to at least Figs.5-7 and 9), imposing, by a control device (58 in Fig.5, which is a part of 22 in Fig.2), return to the main operating mode (when the braking is no more activated), the control device being controlled by the train (10) at least partly regulated by the first oscillator (10 is regulated by 14).
Regarding claim 15, Tombez discloses the imposing by the control device is carried out at a regular time interval and/or at an interval defined by a timepiece movement (please refer to at least ¶ 48, 49, 62 and 78).
Regarding claim 16, Tombez discloses the modifying by the actuator device (36 and 39) comprises moving a pair of immobilization clamps (clamps formed by 36 in Fig.2) along an elastic blade (38) and/or wherein the imposing by the control device comprises moving a pair of immobilization clamps (clamps formed by 36 in Fig.2) along an elastic blade (38).
Regarding claim 18, Tombez discloses the train (10) is a finishing train.
6. Claims 1, 7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (as best understood) as being anticipated by Surmely et al. (EP 3842876, cited by Applicant in the IDS submitted on Nov. 27, 2024) (hereinafter “Surmely”).
Regarding claim 1, Surmely discloses a regulating system (Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: a mechanical first oscillator (14) designed to regulate at least partly a train (11) of a timepiece movement driven by a drive system (8), a control device (48) configured to impose a main operating mode (operating mode when 22A (braking) is not activated) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at a first predetermined frequency (frequency when not braking), the control device being controlled by a train (11) at least partly regulated by the first oscillator (14), and an actuator device (22A and 26) configured to command passage to an auxiliary operating mode (operating mode when 22A (braking) is activated) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at another predetermined frequency (frequency when braking) different from the first frequency.
Regarding claim 7, Surmely discloses the regulating system comprises a counting device (40 in Fig.1) including a second oscillator (44 in Fig.1 and 7) with a fourth frequency greater than the first frequency (please refer to at least ¶ 39-42 and 93).
Regarding claim 9, Surmely discloses a timepiece movement (Fig.1) comprising: a regulating system as claimed in claim 1 (please refer to claim 1 above), and a train (10).
Regarding claim 10, Surmely discloses a timepiece (Fig.1) comprising: a regulating system as claimed in claim 1 (please refer to claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 11, Surmely discloses a method of operating a regulating system for a timepiece movement (Fig.1, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), the regulating system comprising a mechanical first oscillator (14) designed to regulate at least partly a train (11) of a timepiece movement driven by a drive system (8), the method comprising at least one iteration of the following actions: operating in a main operating mode (operating mode when 22A (braking) is not activated) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at a predetermined first frequency (frequency when not braking), modifying, by an actuator device (22A and 26), a frequency of the mechanical first oscillator, operating in an auxiliary operating mode (operating mode when 22A (braking) is activated) in which the mechanical first oscillator oscillates at a second frequency or at a third frequency (frequency when braking), imposing, by a control device (48), return to the main operating mode (when the braking is no more activated), the control device being controlled by the train at least partly regulated by the first oscillator (11 is regulated by 14).
Regarding claim 12, Surmely discloses the method comprises: comparing a time displayed by a timepiece movement and a reference time (using 200 in Fig.17), and carrying out the modifying by the actuator device (22A and 26 in Fig.1) if a particular threshold if exceeded during the carrying out of the comparing (please refer to at least ¶ 6-8).
Regarding claim 13, Surmely discloses the comparing is carried out at a regular time interval and/or at an interval defined by a timepiece movement (please refer to at least ¶ 6-8, 34 and 38).
Regarding claim 14, Surmely discloses the comparing is carried out upon a request by a user (please refer to at least ¶ 2, 6-8, 75, 179 and 180).
Regarding claim 15, Surmely discloses the imposing by the control device is carried out at a regular time interval and/or at an interval defined by a timepiece movement (please refer to at least ¶ 34, 38, 83, 97, 153 and 154).
Regarding claim 16, Surmely discloses the modifying by the actuator device (22A and 26 in Fig.1) comprises moving a pair of immobilization clamps (22A) along an elastic blade (24) and/or wherein the imposing by the control device comprises moving a pair of immobilization clamps (22A) along an elastic blade (24).
Regarding claim 18, Surmely discloses the train (11) is a finishing train.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2-6, 8, 17, 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849