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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The term “similar” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered “similar” and not similar will vary from person to person. For the purposes of examination, “similar’ has been read as -corresponding-.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (US 20250164934).
Regarding claim 1, Perez teaches (Fig. 1) a mechanical watch (Fig. 1, [0025]) in which a movement (inner components of Fig. 1) having a substantially circular shape (the components circumscribed by the dial form the movement and are arranged to have a circular shape) is incorporated in a case ([0004]) and a mainspring (inside 10) is used as a power source ([0030]), wherein a barrel complete (10) storing the mainspring (barrels by definition contain the mainspring: see Barrel.pdf) has a protruding portion (see image below) that partially protrudes from an outer periphery of the substantially circular shape of the movement (see image below), the case has a case body portion (4) and a bottom portion ([0025]: “back”), and an inner peripheral portion of the case body portion is provided with a cutout portion that accommodates the protruding portion (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Perez.
Regarding claim 4, Perez discloses the mechanical watch according to claim 1, wherein the cutout portion is provided between 9 o’clock and 12 o’clock positions of a time display (dial of Fig. 1) in a vertical direction orthogonal to a width direction. The cutout portion is vertically above the bottom of 4, which extends horizontally in a width direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to provide the cutout portion between the 11 o’clock and 12 o’clock position of the time display requires only rotating/shifting components of Perez by several degrees with respect to the center axis of Fig. 1’s dial.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Perez’s cutout portion between the 11 o’clock and 12 o’clock positions of the time display, as the courts have ruled that absent any criticality, there is no invention in shifting position if a device’s operation would not be thereby modified. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04.VI. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to predictably yield a visual appearance that meets market demand for a desired aesthetic.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Fujisawa (US 20110051561).
Regarding claim 2, Perez discloses the mechanical watch according to claim 1.
Perez does not show that the bottom portion of the case has an opening to which a circular lid portion is attached and a diameter of the opening is smaller than a diameter of the movement having the substantially circular shape.
Fujisawa teaches (Fig. 3) a bottom portion (112) of a case having an opening (space for 112) to which a circular lid (112) is attached and a diameter of the opening being smaller than a diameter of a movement (10) having a substantially circular shape ([0202]). Fig. 2 and [0112] disclose the case comprising the bottom portion having a circular shape.
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 Fujisawa’s bottom portion for Perez’s bottom portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to add an additional access point to the watch so that parts replacement and repairs are more convenient.
Regarding claim 5, Perez teaches (Fig. 1) a method of assembling a mechanical watch (Fig. 1, [0025]) in which a movement (inner components of Fig. 1) having a substantially circular shape (all the gear components are arranged around the circular dial so as to have a circular shape) is incorporated in a case ([0004]) and a mainspring (inside 10) is used as a power source ([0030]), the method comprising: preparing the movement having a protruding portion in which an outer periphery of a barrel complete (10) storing the mainspring (definition of barrel; see Barrel.pdf) partially protrudes (see image above) from an outer periphery of the movement (see image above) having the substantially circular shape; preparing the case in which an inner peripheral portion of the case body portion is provided with a cutout portion (see image above) that accommodates the protruding portion; and an incorporating step of incorporating the movement in the case body portion (Fig. 1) of the case, wherein the case has a bottom portion ([0025]: “back”) and in the incorporating step, the movement is incorporated such that the protruding portion is accommodated in the cutout portion (Fig. 1: the inner edge of bezel 4 is shaped to accommodate 10 extending radially into 4).
Perez does not show incorporating the movement in the case body portion from a side opposite to the bottom portion to which a lid portion is attached.
Fujisawa discloses (Fig. 3) a movement (10) in a case body portion (11), the case body portion comprising a bottom portion (112) to which a lid portion (112) is attached ([0112]).
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 Fujisawa’s bottom portion for Perez’s bottom portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to add an additional access point to the watch so that parts replacement and repairs are more convenient.
The combination of Perez and Fujisawa does not show incorporating the movement in the case body portion from a side opposite the bottom portion to which the lid portion is attached.
The case of Perez in view of Fujisawa has openings at the top (in Perez, through the crystal covering the top of the dial in Fig. 1; [0021]) and at the bottom (in Fujisawa, through the bottom of 112 in Fig. 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that there are two ways to incorporate components into the case: either from the bottom portion, or from the top opposite the bottom portion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Perez’s movement in the case body portion from a side opposite the bottom portion, i.e., from the top. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the movement in this manner because it is an easily identifiable solution that could have been predictably chosen from a finite number of solutions for putting components in the case.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of Kaelin et al. (US 20140169141).
Regarding claim 3, Perez discloses the mechanical watch according to claim 1.
Perez does not show that a main plate fixing the barrel complete has a main plate protruding portion.
Kaelin discloses (Fig. 1) a main plate (9) fixing (via 3) a barrel complete (1), wherein the main plate’s diameter is at least equal to the barrel complete’s diameter (Fig. 1) and the main plate has a main plate protruding portion (perimeter/edge of the main plate).
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 Kaelin’s main plate with Perez’s main plate, wherein the main plate’s diameter is at least equal to the barrel complete’s diameter, such that the main plate also has a main plate protruding portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to securely hold the barrel and increase the barrel’s power storage ([0014] of Kaelin).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bonadei (US 20220057753) discloses a cutout in an inner side of a case for accommodating battery ([0034] and 61 in Figs. 1, 2b).
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