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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is two paragraphs (the second paragraph is simply “Figure 4” with no punctuation) and because the abstract simply recites claim 1. The abstract should instead summarize the invention and disclosure in narrative form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 internal connecting members of claim 1, additional gong of claims 9-10, and tuning fork of claim 11 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.
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 2-13, 15, 17 and 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.
Claim 2 recites “at least one external connecting member” in lines 2-3. Whether this recitation refers to a new structure or the earlier recited structure is unclear. The limitation has been read as -the at least one external connecting member-. Claim 17 is similarly rejected for “at least one external connecting member” in line 1.
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “the group” in line 2. The limitation has been read as -a group-.
Claims 12-13 lack antecedent bases for “the direction of the thickness” in lines 2-3. The limitations have been read as -a direction of a thickness-.
Claim 20 recites “it” in line 1. What “it” refers to is unclear. The limitation has been read as -the case-.
Claim 20 recites “the difference,” “the specific acoustic impedances,” and “the materials” in lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. The limitations have been read as -a difference-, -specific acoustic impedances-, and -materials-.
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, 5-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raggi et al. (US 9164487).
Regarding claim 1, Raggi teaches (Figs. 4-5) a sound production device (Fig. 4), designed to be arranged in a case of a timepiece in association with a timepiece movement comprising a chiming or alarm mechanism (abstract), the sound production device comprising:
at least one external connecting member (20) for assembling the sound production device to the case of the timepiece (Fig. 3),
a sound producing member (16) comprising a heel (15) carrying (Fig. 5 and col. 5:15-16) at least one vibrating member (12) made in one piece (Figs. 4-5) with said heel,
a damping member (20), assembled to said sound producing member (15, 24) and designed to form a mechanical assembly interface (7 in Fig. 3) between said sound producing member (16) and the timepiece movement (10 in Fig. 2), and
one or more internal connecting members (screwhead of 17 in Fig. 3) arranged solely on said damping member (20) and designed to assemble the sound production device to the timepiece movement (col. 4:40-44).
Regarding claim 2, Raggi teaches (Figs. 3, 5) the sound production device of claim 1, wherein the at least one external connecting member (20) is arranged on said sound producing member (24) to enable said sound producing member (16) to be assembled directly to the case (1) of the timepiece. Fig. 3 shows the external connecting member 20 assembled to the timepiece case by screws 17.
Regarding claim 3, Raggi teaches the sound production device of claim 2, wherein said sound producing member is made of a material chosen from a group comprising metallic glasses and metallic materials including steels, precious metals and their alloys (cols. 4:38 and 4:65-67).
Regarding claim 5, Raggi teaches (Figs. 4-5) the sound production device of claim 2, wherein said sound producing member (16) and said damping member (20) have adapted overall shapes so that they define together a closed casing ring (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Raggi teaches (Fig. 4) the sound production device of claim 2, wherein said sound producing member (12, 15) and said damping member (20) are assembled to one another by at least two assembly members (25-26) arranged at a distance from one another (col. 5:5-8).
Regarding claim 7, Raggi teaches (Figs. 2, 4) the sound production device of claim 2, wherein said sound producing member comprises a strike portion (29) located between said heel (15) and said vibrating member (12), said strike portion being designed to be struck by a chiming or alarm hammer (11) of the timepiece movement (10). See col. 5:24-29.
Regarding claim 8, Raggi teaches (Fig. 4) the sound production device of claim 7, wherein said vibrating member (12) is a gong extending, substantially from said strike portion (29), through an angle of between 180 and 720 degrees relative to a central axis of the sound production device. Col. 1:26-27 and Fig. 4 show that the gong is ring-shaped and forms a nearly complete circle, so the gong extends through an angle of nearly 360 degrees.
Regarding claims 12-13, Raggi teaches (Fig. 5) the sound production device of claims 1-2, respectively, wherein said vibrating member (12) is at least partially superimposed on said damping member (20) in a direction of a thickness (vertical direction of Fig. 5) of the sound production device.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raggi in view of Benoist et al. EP 4167033).
Regarding claim 9, Raggi discloses the sound production device of claim 8, wherein said sound producing member comprises at least one additional gong (col. 4:12-13).
Raggi does not show the additional gong being made in one piece with the heel.
Benoist teaches (Figs. 3-4) a heel (6) made in one piece with a first gong (1) and a second gong (2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Raggi’s additional gong in one piece with the heel, as suggested by Benoist. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known solution for constructing additional gongs in a timepiece that predictably creates a sound producing device with a desired sound profile.
Regarding claim 10, Raggi in view of Benoist discloses (Fig. 4) the sound production device of claim 9, wherein said gong (1) and said additional gong (2) extend in two opposite directions relative to said heel (6). In Fig. 4, the gong extends right (from 1a) while the additional gong extends left (from 2a).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raggi in view of Lamarche (CH 708036).
Regarding claim 11, Raggi discloses (Fig. 4) the sound production device of claim 7, wherein said vibrating member (12) extends substantially from said strike portion (29) near the heel.
Raggi does not show the vibrating member being a tuning fork having two branches.
Lamarche teaches (Fig. 1) a vibrating member being a tuning fork having two branches (40a, 40b) extending from a heel (42).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Raggi’s vibrating member for Lamarche’s vibrating member. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as an equivalent and predictable solution for creating a vibrating member that produces sound in a timepiece.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raggi in view of Moteki (US 20080008052).
Regarding claims 14-15, Raggi discloses the sound production device of claims 1-2.
Raggi does not show the sound production device having at least one oblong through opening orientated in a radial direction to form a passage for an external control member of the timepiece.
Moteki teaches (Figs. 9-10) a sound production device (910) having at least one oblong through opening (914) in a radial direction to form a passage for an external control member of a timepiece ([0159]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Moteki’s through opening and external control member with Raggi’s sound production device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that a user would be able to activate and control the device ([0119], [0159] of Moteki).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raggi in view of Gagnebin (US 5042018).
Regarding claim 16, Raggi discloses (Figs. 2, 4-5) a timepiece comprising a case (1) housing a timepiece movement (10) with a chiming or alarm mechanism (11) and a sound production device (16) assembled to the case (1 and 7 in Fig. 3), wherein said sound production device (16) comprises:
at least one external connecting member (20) for assembling said sound production device to said case of the timepiece (Fig. 3),
a sound producing member (16) comprising a heel (15) carrying at least one vibrating member (12) made in one piece (Figs. 4-5) with said heel,
a damping member (20), assembled to said sound producing member (15, 24) and designed to form a mechanical assembly interface (7 in Fig. 3) between said sound producing member and said timepiece movement (Fig. 3), and
one or more internal connecting members (screwhead of 17 in Fig. 3) arranged solely on said damping member (20) and designed to assemble said sound production device to said timepiece movement (col. 4:40-44),
and wherein said sound production device (16) is arranged to be able to interact with at least one chiming or alarm hammer (11) of said timepiece movement to produce a sound (col. 5:24-29).
Raggi does not show the timepiece movement being assembled to the case through the sound production device, which comprises the external connecting member.
Gagnebin teaches (abstract) a timepiece movement (“movement”) assembled to a case (“caseband”) through an external connecting member (“casing ring”). The abstract discloses that the external connecting member is assembled to the case, and col. 2:54-57 discloses the external connecting member housing and engaging the movement.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raggi’s movement so that the movement is engaged with and housed by the external connecting member, as suggested by Gagnebin, so that the movement is assembled to the case through the sound production device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known and predictable solution for mounting a movement in a watch case to securely hold the movement (col. 3:11 of Gagnebin).
Regarding claim 17, Raggi discloses (Figs. 3, 5) the timepiece of claim 16, wherein the at least one external connecting member (20) is arranged on said sound producing member (24) to enable said sound producing member (16) to be assembled directly (via 17) to said case (1) of said timepiece.
Regarding claim 18, Raggi discloses (Fig. 4) the timepiece of claim 16, wherein said sound producing member (16) and said damping member (20) have adapted overall shapes so that they define together a closed casing ring (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Raggi discloses (Figs. 2, 4) the timepiece of claim 16, wherein said sound producing member comprises a strike portion (29) located between said heel (15) and said vibrating member (12), said strike portion being designed to be struck by a chiming or alarm hammer (11) of the timepiece movement (10). See col. 5:24-29.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raggi in view of Gagnebin, Wikipedia (Plastic.pdf), and Grychtolik (DE 29914368).
Regarding claim 4, Raggi discloses the sound production device of claim 2.
Raggi does not show the damping member being made of a material chosen from a group comprising elastomers and plastic materials including polyamides, polyoxymethylene and polyurethanes.
Raggi discloses the damping member being a ring (20 in Figs. 4-5).
Gagnebin discloses a ring of a timepiece being made of a plastic material (col. 3:4-7).
Grychtolik discloses damping a sound production device of a watch using plastic ([0027] of the translation).
Wikipedia discloses that plastic is a group comprising plastic materials including polyamides, polyurethanes (page 4, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Raggi’s damping member material for a polyamide or polyurethane plastic, as taught by Gagnebin, Wikipedia, Grychtolik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to dampen noise to achieve a desired sound profile ([0027] of Grychtolik) and because using plastic would simplify manufacture and reduce costs (col. 3:4-7 of Gagnebin).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raggi in view of Gagnebin and Grychtolik.
Regarding claim 20, Raggi discloses (Fig. 3) the timepiece of claim 16, said case (1) comprising a middle part (2) through which the case is assembled (via 17) to said sound production device (7, 12, 15), wherein the sound producing member is made of steel (cols. 4:37-38: and 4:65-67).
Raggi does not disclose a difference between specific acoustic impedances of materials used for said middle part and for said sound producing member being smaller than a difference between specific acoustic impedances of materials used for said sound producing member and for said damping member.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that two structures made of a same material would have a minimal difference in acoustic impedances that is smaller than a difference in acoustic differences between two structures made of different materials.
Metals such as steel are a known material for constructing watch cases and case middles, and Raggi discloses steel as being a known material for making watch components (cols. 4:37-38 and 4:65-67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Raggi’s middle part material for steel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a strong, durable watch with a shiny, aesthetic, premium appearance in accordance with market demands.
Raggi discloses the damping member being a ring (20 in Figs. 4-5).
Gagnebin discloses a ring of a timepiece being plastic (col. 3:4-7).
Grychtolik discloses damping a sound production device of a watch using plastic ([0027]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Raggi’s damping member material for plastic, as taught by Gagnebin and Grychtolik. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to dampen noise to achieve a desired sound profile ([0027] of Grychtolik) and because using plastic would simplify manufacture and reduce costs (col. 3:4-7 of Gagnebin).
Accordingly, Raggi in view of Gagnebin and Grychtolik discloses a difference between specific acoustic impedances of materials used for said middle part and for said sound producing member being smaller than difference between specific acoustic impedances of materials used for said sound producing member and for said damping member. Because the materials used for the middle part and the sound producing member are the same (steel), the difference between the structures’ acoustic impedances is smaller than the difference between the acoustic impedances of the sound producing member and the damping member (which is made of plastic, and therefore different from steel).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chevallier et al. (US 20210173346) discloses a sound producing device of a watch having two gongs extending from a heel (Fig. 1). Marechal (US 20110158058) shows (Fig. 1) a hammer (2) striking a gong (21) of a watch (title).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:30-5:30 PT.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights