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 2 and 3 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 2 recites density greater than 15. This recitation lacks any units for the density. Claim 2 is therefore indefinite.Claim 3 recites density greater than 19. This recitation lacks any units for the density. Claim 3 is therefore indefinite.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funakawa (US 2020/0057412) in view of Lauper (US 2014/0305164) and Gigandet (US 2011/0005055).
With regard to claim 1 Funakawa discloses a composite timepiece component of a regulating mechanism of a watch (title), wherein the composite timepiece comprises
pallets (124 figure 3) having
a staff (11) on which is arranged
an axial shoulder (see top and bottom with shoulder figure 4; flange 112 figure 4), said pallets (124) being provided with
pallet-stones (124, paragraph 53 “pallet stones”) intended to interact intermittently with
an escape wheel set (escape wheel – paragraph 52), the composite component further comprising
a mass (13) fastened to the pallets (124), said mass being made of a denser material (paragraph 42 silicon; metal paragraph 50) than that constituting the pallets (paragraph 50), so that the mass has a maximum radial dimension smaller than or identical to the maximum radial dimension of the pallets (13 is smaller than the radius of the pallets figure 4).
Regarding the limitation said “mass being made of a denser material” Funakawa teaches silicon and metal as the materials. However, while it is reasonable to conclude the metal is heavier than the silicon it isn’t strictly the only possible selection. For this reason, the limitation is being treated as not taught.
Lauper (abstract) and Gigandet teach using gold as a material selection. Gold is a very dense and heavy metal, especially compared to silicon.
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 choose the metal to be a dense metal such as gold, as taught by Lauper and Gigandet. The reason for doing so would have been to achieve a high degree of marketability due to the precious nature of gold. A reason for doing so would have been to achieve a high degree of visual aesthetic due to the appearance of gold. A reason for doing so would have been to choose a soft metal suitable for the application. Gold is well known to be a soft metal. A reason for doing so would have been to choose a well known and common metal selection for horology applications as taught by Gigandet.
With regard to claim 2 Funakawa, Lauper, and Gigandet teach the composite component according to claim 1, wherein the mass is made from a material with a density greater than 15 (the density of gold is 19.32 g/cm^3).
With regard to claim 3 Funakawa, Lauper, and Gigandet teach the composite component according to claim 1, wherein the mass is made from a material with a density greater than 19 (the density of gold is 19.32 g/cm^3).
With regard to claim 4 Funakawa, Lauper, and Gigandet teach the composite component according to claim 1, wherein the mass is made of gold, platinum or their alloys (see the modification of the parent claim. The modification includes gold.)
With regard to claim 5 Funakawa, Lauper, and Gigandet teach the composite component according to claim 1, wherein the mass bears against the axial shoulder, in a manner opposing the pallet-stone (the mass 13 bears against the pallet fork figure 4 and fits around the shaft 111. This is an opposing bearing relative to 112 which cooperates to retain the fork. However, claim 1 merely recites a staff on which is arranged an axial shoulder. So a better interpretation for claim 5 might be the axial should of the fork as opposed to the shaft. Since element 13 directly engaged the fork and is reasonably on the staff.)
With regard to claim 6 Funakawa, Lauper, and Gigandet teach the composite component according to claim 1, wherein the mass (13) comprises a central through-hole via which it is driven onto the staff (111) of the pallets (figures 4, 5).
With regard to claim 7 Funakawa, Lauper, and Gigandet teach the composite component according to claim 1, wherein the mass (13) comprises a stack of a plurality of rotationally symmetrical elements (figure 5 the mass 13 has a series of different widths defining separate regions).To the extent the term stack may be construed to mean discrete: 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 Funakawa’s system to comprise: a mass (or masses) comprises a stack of a plurality of rotationally symmetrical elements. The reason for doing so would have been to provide increased retention ability and divergent radial stacked structures to best fit the packaging constraints of the system as taught by Funakawa, size and varied radius structures.
As a matter of supplemental consideration: See MPEP 2144.04 and subsection VI B regarding duplication of parts and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zaugg US 20210349424 teaches a detent escapement. See figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koda US 2013/0070571 teaches a detent escapement with a balance wheel larger than the pallet tooth radius.
Chiuve US 20100214881 teaches a direct impulse escapement. See 7 figure 2.
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