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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 14, 16, and 19, 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).
Claim 1 recites “a support portion arranged to form, with a reference portion of the timepiece mechanism, a stop interface”. The claim fails to disclose what the interface stops, or any function associated therewith. So the two structures are recited as achieving a result, but the result is not definitely or clearly set forth. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “stop interface has a clearance between the support portion and the reference portion”. This is a problem because the stop interface is defined as being formed by the support portion with the reference portion. An element cannot be defined relative to itself. If the stop interface is separate from the support and the reference portions, that distinction must be clearly and distinctly set forth.
Claims 2-13 and 15, 17-20 depend from claims 1 and 14 and thus are rejected on the basis of dependency.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 10, 13, the phrase "preferably" 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.
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, 3, 7, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wright (US 2216482).With regard to claim 1 Wright discloses a click for a mobile, for example a toothed mobile, of a timepiece mechanism (title; figures 1-6 show the toothed mobile), arranged to be mobile between:
a blocking position (figure 1 shows the ratchet in the stopped position.), in which the click is arranged to block a movement of the mobile in a first displacement direction (figure 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
69
77
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a release position, in which the click is arranged to allow a movement of the mobile in a second displacement direction (figure 1, the slanted ramp portion allows the ratch tooth to slide over the one directional ratchet teeth in the other direction. See claim. Column 2 page 1 lines 29-42),
the click comprising an elastic section (spring arm 34 figures 1, 3, 4) arranged to exert a return force of the click towards the blocking position (Column 2 page 1 lines 29-42),
characterised in that the elastic section comprises
a support portion (31) arranged to form, with
a reference portion (15) of the timepiece mechanism,
a stop interface (31, 15 mount the ratch wheel 26 on the toothed wheel 24)
in which the support portion is at least partially enclosed in the reference portion, or in which the reference portion is at least partially enclosed in the support portion (the shaft 15 is enclosed in the support 31).
See MPEP 2111 regarding broadest reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claim 3 Wright discloses the click according to claim 1, wherein:
one of the support portion and the reference portion comprises a female shape (the support 31 receives the shaft 15),
the other of the support portion and the reference portion comprises a male shape arranged to be received in the female shape (the shaft 15 is inserted into the hollow 31).
With regard to claim 7 Wright discloses the click according to claim 1, wherein the elastic section (32) is formed by a spring arm (32), arranged to be actuated substantially in traction and/or stressed in flexion (figure 1 shows the spring arm engaging the ratchet).
PNG
media_image2.png
229
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 14 Wright discloses 14 a click for a mobile, for example a toothed mobile, of a timepiece mechanism, arranged to be mobile (title; figures 1-6 show the toothed mobile) between:
a blocking position (figure 1 shows the ratch in the stopped position), in which the click is arranged to block a movement of the mobile in a first displacement direction (figure 1),
a release position, in which the click is arranged to allow a movement of the mobile in a second displacement direction (figure 1, the slanted ramp portion allows the ratch tooth to slide over the one directional ratchet teeth in the other direction. See claim. Column 2 page 1 lines 29-42),
the click comprising an elastic section (spring arm 34 figures 1, 3, 4) arranged to exert a return force of the click towards the blocking position (Column 2 page 1 lines 29-42),
characterised in that the elastic section comprises a support portion (31) arranged to form, with a reference portion (15) of the timepiece mechanism, a stop interface (31, 15 mount the ratch wheel 26 on the toothed wheel 24) in which the support portion is at least partially enclosed in the reference portion, or in which the reference portion is at least partially enclosed in the support portion (the shaft 15 is enclosed in the support 31),
the click comprising a body comprising:
a bearing to enable a rotary movement of the click between the blocking position and the release position (the click bears and allows rotation figure 1), and/or a latching tongue (36), arranged to be engaged with the mobile when the click is in the blocking position (figure 1), and/or a blocking stop (36), arranged to be in abutment with a reference stop of the timepiece mechanism or with the mobile when the click is in the blocking position (figure 1).With regard to claim 15 Wright discloses the click according to claim 14, wherein the body is formed in one piece with the bearing and/or with the latching tongue and/or with the blocking stop, and/or with the elastic section comprising the support portion provided in a protrusion formed at a first end of the elastic section (figure 1 the structure is formed in one piece).
With regard to claim 18 Wright discloses a timepiece assembly (clock – title), comprising at least one click according to claim 1 and at least the reference portion of the timepiece mechanism (figure 1).With regard to claim 19 Wright discloses the timepiece assembly according to claim 18, comprising the mobile, for example a ratchet wheel (26 figure 1).
With regard to claim 20 Wright discloses a timepiece (clock - title), comprising at least one click according to claim 1 (figure 1).
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 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (US 2216482) in view of Peter US 20190163134.With regard to claim 5 (depends from claim 1) Wright does not disclose the claimed: wherein the support portion is provided in a protrusion formed at a first end of the elastic section, the click comprising a body formed in one piece with the elastic section and the support portion.Peter teaches a double elastic ratchet with support mount portions at 180 degrees from each other located at the base of each elastic portion – figure 1.
It 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 to modify Wright’s system to comprise a support portion is provided in a protrusion formed at a first end of the elastic section, the click comprising a body formed in one piece with the elastic section and the support portion, as taught by Peter. The reason for doing so would have been to mount the elastic portion at the end to provide excellent mechanical retention between the spring part and the acted upon part, as taught by Peter.
With regard to claim 6 Wright and Peter disclose the click according to claim 5, wherein the body comprises:
a bearing to enable a rotary movement of the click between the blocking position and the release position (the click bears and allows rotation figure 1), and/or a latching tongue (36), arranged to be engaged with the mobile when the click is in the blocking position (figure 1), and/or a blocking stop (36), arranged to be in abutment with a reference stop of the timepiece mechanism or with the mobile when the click is in the blocking position (figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 8-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and corrected to address the 35 USC 112 issues.Claims 16 and 17 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 and/or 103.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance (This statement pertains to the merits of 35 USC 102 and 103 only):
Claim 2 the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed clearance between in combination with the other limitations.Claim 4 the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed oblong shape in combination with the other limitations. See 112 rejection.Claim 8 the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed an immobilisation position, different from the blocking position in combination with the other limitations.
Claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 and thus incorporates the same subject matter. Claim 16 the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed an immobilisation position, different from the blocking position and the release position in combination with the other limitations.
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and thus incorporates the same subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Erickson US 3355602 teaches a ratchet system with spring elements which enclose their supports.
PNG
media_image3.png
262
283
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2.Goodhouse (US 3025365) teaches a non-circular aperture for mounting. See figures 3 and 4.
PNG
media_image4.png
307
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN KAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-8931. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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.
/SEAN KAYES/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights