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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 7, the “elastic force limitation mechanism” comprises a flute and a wheel comprising a peripheral gear ([0055]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-14 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 that at least two displays will be simultaneously corrected and synchronized. However, claim 1 and the specification does not disclose what specific structure(s) and arrangement thereof yields this simultaneous correction and synchronization. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not know how to reproduce/recreate the recited feature. For the purposes of examination, any prior art reference that meets the general structure claimed in claim 1 is understood to have the claimed qualities/functions.
Claims 6-10 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 6 recites “the month” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation has been read as -a month-.
Claim 7 recites “the correction movement” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The limitation has been read as -the correction mobile-.
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 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglini (US 20180157213).
Regarding claim 1, Saglini discloses (Fig. 3) a device (300) for a bidirectional correction ([0048]) of at least two displays ([0002], [0048]) including a date display (20, [0032]) of a calendar display device having a correction mobile (310) and a correction gear train (311-312) permanently coupled ([0048], Fig. 9) to the correction mobile that are arranged to simultaneously correct ([0042] discloses that correction of the two displays begins at midnight) the at least two displays of the calendar display with respect to a force transmission mechanism of the at least two displays (a force transmission mechanism must be present to power and drive Saglini’s watch components; [0015]: “movement”) intended to increment them periodically (date displays and calendar displays are by definition periodically incremented) in order to preserve synchronization of the at least two displays of the calendar display device (the displays must be synchronized to create a functional watch that displays date/calendar information; [0015]).
Saglini does not show in this embodiment correction of the at least two displays occurring independently with respect to the force transmission mechanism to avoid disturbing the force transmission mechanism during correction phases.
Saglini teaches in another embodiment correction of at least two displays occurring independently with respect to a force transmission mechanism to avoid disturbing the force transmission mechanism during correction phases ([0008]: “a first display mechanism…and a second display mechanism…comprising a common correction mechanism…independent of the common driving mechanism”).
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 Saglini’s Fig. 3 embodiment so that correction does not interfere with regular driving of Saglini’s watch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent jamming and unintentional advancement of the date/calendar display.
Regarding claim 2, Saglini discloses a timepiece movement ([0015]) comprising the device for the bidirectional correction of the display device according to claim 1, the timepiece movement having the force transmission mechanism comprising a date control pin ([0034]: “pawl 52”) arranged to control a date wheel ([0041]: “disc of the day of the month 21”) of the calendar display device to increment by one unit the date display every twenty-four hours ([0031]: “control of…20 takes place towards midnight”), wherein the correction mobile of the bidirectional correction device is arranged to control the date wheel of the calendar display device independently with respect to the force transmission mechanism to avoid disturbing the force transmission during the correction phases (see [0008] of Saglini and claim 1’s rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Saglini discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 2, wherein the date control pin ([0034]: “pawl 52”) is elastically arranged in the force transmission mechanism ([0038]: pawl 52 is “movable…in opposition to second elastic restoring means 5120”) so that it can elastically retract ([0038]: “disengageable pawl 52, effects a to-and-fro motion”) from the date wheel when the date wheel is moved by the correction mobile while the date control pin is on a trajectory of the date wheel. The pawl moves the date wheel by driving the date wheel’s trajectory (the “to” motion); then the pawl disengages away (the “fro” motion).
Regarding claim 4, Saglini discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 3, wherein the force transmission mechanism comprises a day control pin ([0034]: “pawl 52”) arranged to control a day wheel ([0041]: “disc of the day of the month 21”) of the calendar display device to increment by one unit at least one day display every twenty-four hours ([0031]: “control of…20 takes place towards midnight”), the correction gear train of the bidirectional correction device being arranged to control the day wheel of the calendar display device independently with respect to the force transmission mechanism to avoid disturbing the force transmission mechanism during the correction phases (see [0008] of Saglini and claim 1’s rejection).
Regarding claim 5, Saglini discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 4, wherein the day control pin ([0034]: “pawl 52”) is elastically arranged in the force transmission mechanism ([0038]: pawl 52 is “movable…in opposition to second elastic restoring means 5120”) so that it can elastically retract ([0038]: “disengageable pawl 52, effects a to-and-fro motion”) from the day wheel when the day wheel is moved by the correction gear train while the day control pin is on a trajectory of the day wheel. The pawl moves the day wheel by driving the day wheel’s trajectory (the “to” motion); then the pawl disengages away (the “fro” motion).
Regarding claim 6, Saglini discloses (Fig. 3) the timepiece movement according to claim 5, wherein the force transmission mechanism comprising a control wheel (3) arranged to control ([0033]-[0034]) a wheel (21) of the calendar display device to selectively increment by at least one additional unit the date display depending on a number of days in a month ([0031]: the date display is incremented at midnight, so it depends on a day of a month), the correction gear train of the bidirectional correction device being arranged to control the wheel of the calendar display device independently with respect to the force transmission to avoid disturbing the force transmission mechanism during the correction phases (see [0008] of Saglini and claim 1’s rejection).
Saglini does not show in this embodiment the control wheel being a month end control wheel and the wheel being a month end wheel.
Saglini teaches that its movement can comprise more than two displays ([0029]: “at least one first display 10 and one second display 20”). Saglini teaches in another embodiment that the movement may be adapted to include monthly displays ([0044]).
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 a month end control wheel, month end wheel, and month display with Saglini’s movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create a watch capable of indicating days of the month as well as the month in a reliable, easily corrected, energy-efficient manner ([0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Saglini discloses a timepiece comprising the timepiece movement according to claim 2 ([0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Saglini discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 2, wherein the force transmission mechanism comprises a day control pin ([0034]: “pawl 52”) arranged to control a day wheel ([0041]: “disc of the day of the month 21”) of the calendar display device to increment by one unit at least one day display every twenty-four hours ([0031]: “control of…20 takes place towards midnight”), the correction gear train of the bidirectional correction device being arranged to control the day wheel of the calendar display device independently with respect to the force transmission mechanism to avoid disturbing the force transmission mechanism during the correction phases (see [0008] of Saglini and claim 1’s rejection).
Regarding claim 13, Saglini discloses (Fig. 3) the timepiece movement according to claim 2, wherein the force transmission mechanism comprising a control wheel (3) arranged to control ([0033]-[0034]) a wheel (21) of the calendar display device to selectively increment by at least one additional unit the date display depending on a number of days in a month ([0031]: the date display is incremented at midnight, so it depends on a day of a month), the correction gear train of the bidirectional correction device being arranged to control the wheel of the calendar display device independently with respect to the force transmission to avoid disturbing the force transmission mechanism during the correction phases (see [0008] of Saglini and claim 1’s rejection).
Saglini does not show in this embodiment the control wheel being a month end control wheel and the wheel being a month end wheel.
Saglini teaches that its movement can comprise more than two displays ([0029]: “at least one first display 10 and one second display 20”). Saglini teaches in another embodiment that the movement may be adapted to include monthly displays ([0044]).
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 a month end control wheel, month end wheel, and month display with Saglini’s movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create a watch capable of indicating days of the month as well as the month in an reliable, easily corrected, energy-efficient manner ([0011]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglini in view of Yuichi et al. (CH 703483).
Regarding claim 7, Saglini discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 6.
Saglini does not show the correction mobile comprising an elastic force limitation mechanism to elastically disengage the correction mobile bidirectionally above a predetermined torque applied to the correction mobile so that the correction gear train does not drive the month end wheel of the calendar display device while the month end control wheel is meshed with the month end wheel of the calendar display device.
Yuichi teaches (Fig. 7 and [0097] in the translation) a correction mobile (60F) comprising an elastic force limitation mechanism (80F) to elastically disengage the correction mobile bidirectionally above a predetermined torque applied to the correction mobile (“the degree of displacement…increases if the torque load increases; when the displacement reaches the engagement depth…torque transmission ceases to be effected”) so that the correction gear train does not drive an end wheel (70F) while the end wheel is meshed with an end control wheel (41 in Fig. 2, [0041], and last sentence of [0057]). In Fig. 7, elements 67, 90, 75, 81, and 88 attach wheels 60F and 70F together so that 60F and 70F rotate together. However, when a torque driving 60F exceeds a threshold, elastic elements 90, 75, 81, and 88 deform and disengage 60F from 70F, so that 70F is not driven.
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 Yuichi’s elastic force limitation mechanism to Saglini’s correction mobile. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to prevent overwinding, which may break or damage components ([0002] of Yuichi).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglini in view of Yuichi et al. as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Imamura et al. (US 20210041835).
Regarding claim 8, Saglini in view of Yuichi discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 7.
The combination of Saglini and Yuichi does not show the bidirectional correction device comprising a clutch mechanism to switch between a correction position in which the correction device is coupled to a correction control member to correct the display device, and a disengaged position in which the correction device is uncoupled from the control member to prevent any correction of the display device.
Imamura teaches ([0048]) a correction device (“correction mechanism 90”) comprising a clutch mechanism (“clutch wheel 93”) to switch between a correction position (the pulled-out position effected by “pulling the crown 91”) in which the correction device is coupled to a correction control member (“crown 91”) to correct a display device (“pointers”), and a disengaged position (the not pulled-out position) in which the correction device is uncoupled from the control member to prevent any correction of the display device. In the pulled-out/correction position, the clutch transmits rotation from the control member/crown to the correction device, and when not pulled-out, the clutch prevents rotational movement from being transferred.
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 Imamura’s clutch mechanism and correction control member with Saglini’s movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that a user could change their display device’s time display without accidents.
Regarding claim 9, Saglini discloses (Figs. 1-2) the timepiece movement according to claim 8, wherein the correction device comprises a cam (4, 6) and an elastic element (5110, 5120) allowing, in the disengaged position, the correction mobile to be in a predetermined rest position ([0038]: “the restoring effected by the first elastic restoring means 5110 or respectively second elastic restoring means 5120…makes it possible to ensure the disengagement”) outside a trajectory ([0038]: “leave the field free”) of the date wheel.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saglini in view of Imamura.
Regarding claim 14, Saglini discloses the timepiece movement according to claim 2.
Saglini does not show the bidirectional correction device comprising a clutch mechanism to switch between a correction position in which the correction device is coupled to a correction control member to correct the display device, and a disengaged position in which the correction device is uncoupled from the control member to prevent any correction of the display device.
Imamura teaches ([0048]) a correction device (“correction mechanism 90”) comprising a clutch mechanism (“clutch wheel 93”) to switch between a correction position (the pulled-out position effected by “pulling the crown 91”) in which the correction device is coupled to a correction control member (“crown 91”) to correct a display device (“pointers”), and a disengaged position (the not pulled-out position) in which the correction device is uncoupled from the control member to prevent any correction of the display device. In the pulled-out/correction position, the clutch transmits rotation from the control member/crown to the correction device, and when not pulled-out, the clutch prevents rotational movement from being transferred.
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 Imamura’s clutch mechanism and correction control member with Saglini’s movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination so that a user does not unintentionally change the display device’s display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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: regarding claim 10, the prior art does not show or suggest an elastic element exerting a thrust force against an external profile of a cam to drive, in a disengaged position, a correction mobile to a predetermined rest position, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Villar (US 20130250737) discloses a correction mechanism that can correct two displays independently of a drive mechanism (abstract). Calame et al. (US 2017026955) discloses an elastic force limitation mechanism ([0040]).
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
