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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are thus being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “return means arranged to return” in ln. 2. Support for this limitation is found in the specification (pg. 4, ln. 20-21) and the drawings. Thus, the term “return means” is being interpreted to mean “leaf spring” in accordance with the specification.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “stopping means arranged to stop” in ln. 2-3. Support for this limitation is found in the specification (pg. 8, ln. 8-14) and the drawings, which describes the claimed structure. The term “stopping means” will be interpreted to be the combination of the eccentric (25a) and bearing surface (25b) as described.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “abutment means limiting the angular sector” in ln. 9. Support for this limitation is found in the specification (pg. 6, ln. 3) and the drawings, which describes the claimed structure. The term “abutment means” will be interpreted to mean the combination of the finger (23a) and pin (23b) as described.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 the limitation "the respective profile or profiles" in ln. 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 12 recite “the stopping means” in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a predetermined angle”, and the claim also recites “the predetermined angle preferably being less than 30°, preferably less than 5°, and preferably being greater than 1.2°, preferably greater than 1.3°, preferably greater than 1.4°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Likewise, claim 25 recites the broad recitation “a first retrograde display” and the narrower recitation “preferably a retrograde minute display”.
Claim 26 recites the broad recitation “a second retrograde display” and the narrower recitation “preferably a retrograde hour display”.
Claim 29 recites the broad recitation “an animation function” and the narrower recitation “preferably an automaton function”.
These claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the above noted claims will be examined as if the narrower limitations have been removed from the claims.
Claim 4 recites “characterised in that it comprises…”. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to which structure “it” refers. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “it” will be examined as referring to the device in its entirety.
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, 3-4, 13, 16, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koukjian (EP 1577718, hereinafter Koukjian).
Regarding claim 1, Koukjian discloses a “Device for coordinated actuation of two functions of a timepiece, the device comprising: one or a plurality of cams (30, 38) arranged to be driven by the movement of the timepiece (10) and of which the respective profile or profiles each comprise a discontinuity (30, 38); a first (32) and a second (40) transmission member each comprising a cam follower, the cam follower of the first transmission member being arranged to cooperate with the profile of the cam or of a first of said cams (32a follows 30) and to fall periodically into the discontinuity of the profile of the cam or of said first of said cams (32a falls based on the rotation of the snail cam), the cam follower of the second transmission member (40a) being arranged to cooperate with the profile of the cam or of a second of said cams (40a follows 38) and to fall periodically, with the same period as the falls of the cam follower of the first transmission member (30 and 38 are kinematically connected by the gear train so as to synchronize their movements), into the discontinuity of the profile of the cam or of said second of said cams (40a falls based on the rotation of 38), the falls of the cam follower of the first transmission member being offset in time with respect to those of the cam follower of the second transmission member (para. [0015], "The two branches 12 and 14 have equal gear ratios, so that the cams 30 and 38 rotate at the same speed, but are slightly out of phase.")”.
Koukjian (para. [0019]) further anticipates the embodiment wherein a single cam controls the falls of both cam followers, stating “It would also be possible to have only one cam cooperating with both levers, their fingers 32a and 40a being slightly offset. In this way, adjusting the phase shift would be easier.”
Regarding claim 3, Koukjian discloses “said one or said plurality of cams consists of a snail (30, 38 are snail cams), the cam followers of the first (32a) and of the second (40a) transmission members both being arranged to cooperate with the profile of the snail, and in that the cam followers of the first and of the second transmission members are arranged to follow the profile of the snail with an offset (para. [0015]), the cam follower of the first transmission member being in advance with respect to the cam follower of the second transmission member (para. [0016], “the lever 40 only falls when the foot of the leg 46 appears to strike the ball 48”, thus the discontinuity of cam 38 is in advance of the one of cam 30).”
Regarding claim 4, Koukjian discloses that the device “comprises return means (34, 42) arranged to return the cam followers of the first and second transmission members against the profile of the snail, said snail comprising a rising profile terminating by a drop forming said discontinuity (common definition of a snail cam), and in that the first and second transmission members each further comprise a toothed sector (32b, 40b) arranged in order, during each revolution of the snail, to pivot alternately in one direction and the other from an extreme angular position associated with the tip of the profile of the snail to an opposite extreme angular position (the effect of Koukjian’s disclosed mechanism).”
Regarding claim 13, Koukjian discloses “said one or said plurality of cams comprise said first cam (38) arranged to cooperate with the cam follower (40a) of the first transmission member (40) and said second cam (30) arranged to cooperate with the cam follower (32a) of the second transmission member (32).”
Regarding claim 16, Koukjian discloses “the first cam (38) is a snail.”
Regarding claim 30, Koukjian discloses “Timepiece comprising two functions and a device as claimed in claim 1 to actuate the two functions in a coordinated manner (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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koukjian.
Regarding claim 2, Koukjian discloses “the offset between the cam followers is equal to the time necessary for the cam or for the cams to turn by a predetermined angle when they are driven by the movement (para [0016], "Because of the phase shift between the two branches 12 and 14, the lever 40 only falls when the foot of the leg 46 appears to strike the ball 48, which is then projected far away." and para. [0019] “only one cam cooperating with both levers, their fingers 32a and 40a being slightly offset.”), the predetermined angle preferably being less than 30°, preferably less than 5°, and preferably being greater than 1.2°, preferably greater than 1.3°, preferably greater than 1.4°.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the difference in phase between the cams or, alternatively the modify the offset between the fingers of the cam followers in a single cam embodiment, in a manner to cause the desired operational phase offset of the mechanism to achieve the coordinated actuation of the two functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12, 14-15, and 17-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if allowable subject matter were incorporated into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art was found wherein a device for coordinated actuation of two functions of a timepiece comprises one or more snail cams and associated first and second transmission members which are arranged to actuate the functions in an offset sequence, and further wherein the device comprises stopping means arranged to temporarily stop a toothed sector of the first transmission member in a predetermined angular position during the actuation phase of the mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Behra, et al. – US 20180181070 – Discloses a carillon sounding mechanism for a timepiece using cam followers cooperating with cams having discontinuous profiles, however the cams disclosed are extensively modified from the snail shape and the mechanism only operates the single carillon function and no other functions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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.
/MICHAEL JAMES WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights