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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a second cutout portion in which, when rotated, the lever is arranged to be movable in an axial direction of the attachment hole” claim 1 and “connection object and the connection target oppose each other, and continuously formed” claims 9-12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a second cutout portion in which, when rotated, the lever is arranged to be movable in an axial direction of the attachment hole”. There is nothing in the disclosure of the invention that supports this limitation. The disclosure shows element 23 very much limited in axial movement in figure 6a.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no indication that the cutout has any correlation between rotation and axial movement. The axial movement appears to only be possible in figure 5a when in a firm non-rotating status. That is to say that 23 must clear the center portions shown as 26a in figure 5b.
PNG
media_image2.png
330
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
During rotation the system cannot reasonably move axially. Only in a set static rotational position can the system reasonably move in an axial direction to permit the extension/retraction of pins 22.The Wands factors have been considered. The claim is not commensurate with the disclosure. The claims are not limited to the disclosed rotate-then-slide arrangement, but conversely require axial movement when rotated. The specification provides insufficient direction or guidance because it does not describe a cam, helical guide, angled slot, or other structure that would permit axial movement when the lever is rotated. The only working examples show axial movement after rotation into the second cutout portion. The claimed functionality depends on specific cutout geometry that is not disclosed. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have to redesign the disclosed structure and experiment to determine how to achieve the claimed operation. Accordingly, the specification does not enable the full scope of claim 1. In the current instance applicant has set forth an invention different from the current claim set in such a way the reader or one having ordinary skill in the art would be confused how to achieve the claimed invention in light of the specification as applicant’s entire disclosure is directed to a different invention.
Claims 2-19 depend from claim 1 and thus have the same defect and are rejected on the basis of that dependency.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “in which, when rotated”. When rotated is not a structural limitation, but an operational limitation. The recitation does not clearly or distinctly indicate what structural limitation would follow from the claim language as opposed to an operational step to be performed as part of a method.
Claim 2 recites “opposing a portion of an outer circumferential surface of the connection target” The shape or size or orientation of the connection target is not defined. Thus the outer circumferential surface of the connection target is undefined. Claim 2 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “opposing a portion of an outer circumferential surface of the connection target”. However the connection target is just a target. For example the pin could be connected or it could not be connected. The claimed structure would exist in both instances. Thus definition relative to a possible additional part does not define a clear and definite invention.
Claims 3, 4 recite “open toward a back surface side of the connection target”. The connection target is just a target. For example the pin could be connected or it could not be connected. The claimed structure would exist in both instances. Thus definition relative to a possible additional part does not define a clear and definite invention. Claims 3-4 are therefore indefinite.Regarding claims 5-8:The phrase “when rotated in the first cutout portion while centering on the central axis” is not understood. While centering is not a structural limitation, but a step to be performed. The recitation does not clearly or definitely set forth a structural limitation that the reader can reasonably ascertain.
Claims 9-12 recite “in which the connection object and the connection target oppose each other”. No spatial relationship of the connection target or object is set forth. In claim 1 they are listed as optional alternatives. Thus the limitations defining them as opposed does not reasonably convey a structural limitation of the system. It is unclear how they oppose. I.e. does this limitation merely describe them as connected by the pins? If so what does it mean for them to be opposed in this context?Claims 2-19 depend from claim 1 (as well as any other intervening claim), have at least the same defect(s), and are rejected on the basis of that dependency.
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 1-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maire US 10935934.
With regard to claim 1 Maire discloses a connector comprising:
an attachment member (32 figure 4) which has an attachment hole (15a) and is provided on one of a connection object (watch wristlet - abstract) and a connection target (watch – abstract, title); and
a connection member (33, 34, 52, 44 figure 4) which (i) includes a slide member (52) that has a lever (52) and is slidable in a cylindrical member (34) inserted into the attachment hole (15a), and (ii) is attached to an other one of the connection object and the connection target by the slide member protruding from an end of the cylindrical member (abstract),
wherein the attachment member (32) has formed therein a first cutout portion (46) in which the lever (52) is rotated centering on a central axis of the attachment hole (15a) and a second cutout portion (56) in which, when rotated, the lever is arranged to be movable in an axial direction of the attachment hole (figure 4).
With regard to claim 2 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein the first cutout portion (46) is formed between an opposing surface of one end portion (of 15a) of the attachment member (32) opposing a portion of an outer circumferential surface of the connection target (title, abstract) and an inner circumferential surface of the attachment hole (15a; the pin extends into the receiving portion to connect the elements as set forth in the title and abstract. It is unclear how this claim limitation is capable of distinguishing from that inherent interaction.)
With regard to claim 3 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein the second cutout portion (56) is formed between an undersurface of the attachment member (32; the under surface defined by the orientation of 52) and an inner circumferential surface of the attachment hole (15a) and open toward a back surface side of the connection target (the orientation thereof can be construed to the back surface side as no other limitation is defined relative to the direction).
With regard to claim 4 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 2, wherein the second cutout portion (56) is formed between an undersurface of the attachment member (32; the under surface defined by the orientation of 52) and an inner circumferential surface of the attachment hole (15a) and open toward a back surface side of the connection target (the orientation thereof can be construed to the back surface side as no other limitation is defined relative to the direction).
With regard to claim 5 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein, when rotated in the first cutout portion (46 figure 4) while centering on the central axis of the attachment hole (15a) and arranged in the second cutout portion (56), the lever (52) is exposed toward a back surface side of the connection target (figure 4, title, and abstract, the back surface may merely be defined as the direction the lever occupies in this position because the position is otherwise unconstrained).
With regard to claim 6 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 2, wherein, when rotated in the first cutout portion (46) while centering on the central axis of the attachment hole (15a) and arranged in the second cutout portion (56), the lever (52) is exposed toward a back surface side of the connection target (title, abstract – watch and wristlet. The back surface side may merely be defined as the orientation of the lever in this position as it is not defined relative to any other part).
With regard to claim 7 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 3, wherein, when rotated in the first cutout portion (46) while centering on the central axis of the attachment hole (15a) and arranged in the second cutout portion (56), the lever (52) is exposed toward a back surface side of the connection target (title, abstract – watch and wristlet. The back surface side may merely be defined as the orientation of the lever in this position as it is not defined relative to any other part).
With regard to claim 8 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 4, wherein, when rotated in the first cutout portion (46) while centering on the central axis of the attachment hole (15a) and arranged in the second cutout portion (56), the lever (52) is exposed toward a back surface side of the connection target (title, abstract – watch and wristlet. The back surface side may merely be defined as the orientation of the lever in this position as it is not defined relative to any other part).
With regard to claim 9-12 Maire discloses the connector according to claims 1-4 (respectively), wherein the first cutout portion (46) and the second cutout portion (56) are open toward a surface side in which the connection object and the connection target oppose each other, and continuously formed (element 52 must extend through the cutouts in order to be operable thus the cutouts must be continuous).
With regard to claims 13-16 Maire discloses the connector according to claims 1-4 (respectively), wherein the attachment member (32) has an engaging portion (insert portion 34 figure 4) which engages with a locking portion formed on the other one of the connection object and the connection target (The bar 30 comprises a hollow body 32, a first shaft 33 which is arranged in the hollow body 32 and is provided with a first pivot 34, and a second shaft 36 which is arranged in the hollow body 32 and provided with a second pivot 38. The bar 30 is designed to be inserted in a guide of the wristlet, each of the first and second pivots 34, 38 being introduced into a corresponding receptacle of a respective horn of the watch case, thus allowing the wristlet to be secured on the watch. – column 5 lines 11-21).
With regard to claim 18 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein the connection object is a band (wristlet - title, abstract).
With regard to claim 19 Maire discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein the connection target is a timepiece (watch – title, abstract).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maire US 10935934 in view of Kitagawa US 5403374
With regard to claim 17 (depends from claim 1) Maire does not disclose the claimed: wherein the attachment member is formed of a sintering metal acquired by metal powder being sintered.
Kitagawa teaches a watch band formed of a sintering metal acquired by metal powder being sintered column 4 lines 25-44.
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 configure Maire’s system to comprise: an attachment member is formed of a sintering metal acquired by metal powder being sintered, as taught in part by Kitagawa. This modification would entail a structure with predictable success and predictable results. Doing so would involve no more than selecting a well known and common manufacturing technique to form a part. Kitagawa teaches the advantages of appearance quality and ability to form shapes as desirable features of the sintering process – abstract.
Conclusion
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