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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,520,913. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1-2 requires:
1. A clasp comprising:
a first extension link in which one end side is rotatably supported at one end of a clasp cover of a band; and
a second extension link connected to a side opposite of the one end side of the first extension link via a connecting member,
wherein,
one of the first extension link or the second extension link is fixed to the other of the first extension link or the second extension link at a position different from a connected position in the connecting member, and
the first extension link is fixed to the clasp cover at a position different from the one end of the clasp cover where the first extension link is rotatably supported.
2. The clasp according to claim 1, wherein,
the connecting member is a first spring bar, and
the second extension link is configured to be capable of taking a folded state in which it is arranged to overlap with the first extension link, and an extended state in which it is pulled out in a length direction of the band.
Patented claims 1-2 require:
1. A clasp comprising:
a first extension link that is formed in a U-shape and in which a closed end side is rotatably supported at one end of a clasp cover of a band; and
a second extension link connected to an open end side of the first extension link via a connecting member,
wherein,
the second extension link is fixed to the first extension link at a position different from a connected position in the connecting member, and
the first extension link is fixed to the clasp cover at a position different from the one end of the clasp cover where the first extension link is rotatably supported.
2. The clasp according to claim 1, wherein,
the connecting member is a first spring bar, and
the second extension link is configured to be capable of taking a folded state in which it is arranged to overlap with the first extension link, and an extended state in which it is pulled out in a length direction of the band.
Although the patented claim 1 requires the first extension link to be U-shaped, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of a link and therefore the claims are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,520,913. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-5 require:
1. A clasp comprising:
a first extension link in which one end side is rotatably supported at one end of a clasp cover of a band; and
a second extension link connected to a side opposite of the one end side of the first extension link via a connecting member,
wherein,
one of the first extension link or the second extension link is fixed to the other of the first extension link or the second extension link at a position different from a connected position in the connecting member, and
the first extension link is fixed to the clasp cover at a position different from the one end of the clasp cover where the first extension link is rotatably supported.
2. The clasp according to claim 1, wherein,
the connecting member is a first spring bar, and
the second extension link is configured to be capable of taking a folded state in which it is arranged to overlap with the first extension link, and an extended state in which it is pulled out in a length direction of the band.
3. The clasp according to claim 2, wherein the one of the first extension link or the second extension link is in a fitted state fitted inside the other of the first extension link or the second extension link when in the folded state.
4. The clasp according to claim 3, wherein the first extension link and the second extension link are configured to be capable of being stored inside the clasp cover in the folded state.
5. The clasp according to claim 4, wherein,
the first spring bar extends in a penetrating state to penetrate through the first extension link and the second extension link in a width direction of the band, and
both ends of the first spring bar are latched to the clasp cover in a stored state in which the first extension link and the second extension link are stored inside the clasp cover
Patented claim 19 requires:
19. A band comprising:
a clasp including,
a first extension link that is formed in a U-shape and in which a closed end side is rotatably supported at one end of a clasp cover of the band, and
a second extension link connected to an open end side of the first extension link via a connecting member,
wherein,
the second extension link is fixed to the first extension link at a position different from a connected position in the connecting member,
the first extension link is fixed to the clasp cover at a position different from the one end of the clasp cover where the first extension link is rotatably supported,
the connecting member is a first spring bar,
the second extension link is configured to be capable of taking a folded state in which it is arranged to overlap with the first extension link, and an extended state in which it is pulled out in a length direction of the band,
the first extension link and the second extension link are configured to be capable of being stored inside the clasp cover in the folded state, and
the first spring bar extends in a penetrating state to penetrate through the first extension link and the second extension link in a width direction of the band, and wherein both ends of the first spring bar are latched to the clasp cover in a stored state in which the first extension link and the second extension link are stored inside the clasp cover.
Although the patented claim 19 requires the first extension link to be U-shaped, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of a link and therefore the claims are not patentably distinct from one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaltenrieder et al. US 8739369.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaltenrieder et al. discloses a clasp comprising:
a first extension link (14) in which one end side is rotatably supported at one end of a clasp cover of a band; and
a second extension link (12) connected to a side opposite of the one end side of the first extension link via a connecting member (22),
wherein,
one of the first extension link or the second extension link is fixed to the other of the first extension link or the second extension link at a position different from a connected position in the connecting member (22) (the second extension link 12 is attached to the first extension link 14 at position 46), and
the first extension link is fixed to the clasp cover at a position (click 26 of first extension link 14 is attached to the clasp cover at locking pin 42) different from the one end of the clasp cover where the first extension link is rotatably supported (Fig 2A-2B).
Regarding Claim 17, Kaltenrieder et al. discloses a band (6 and 10) comprising the clasp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaltenrieder et al. US 8739369 in view of Yamashita US 20230000220.
Regarding Claim 2, Kaltenrieder et al. discloses wherein,
the second extension link is configured to be capable of taking a folded state in which it is arranged to overlap with the first extension link, and an extended state in which it is pulled out in a length direction of the band (Fig 2A-2B).
Kaltenrieder et al. does not disclose wherein the connecting member is a first spring bar.
Yamashita discloses spring rod (31) used as a hinge.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hinge of Kaltenrieder et al to include a spring pin as disclosed by Yamashita for ease of assembly.
Regarding Claim 3, Kaltenrieder et al. in view of Yamashita discloses wherein the one of the first extension link or the second extension link is in a fitted state fitted inside the other of the first extension link or the second extension link when in the folded state (Kaltenrieder et al. Fig 2A-2B).
Regarding Claim 4, Kaltenrieder et al. in view of Yamashita discloses wherein the first extension link and the second extension link are configured to be capable of being stored inside the clasp cover in the folded state (Kaltenrieder et al. Fig 2A-2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable upon overcoming the rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 6-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form 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: the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious wherein in both ends of the first spring bar are latched to the clasp cover in a stored state along with other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Granito US 11786017 discloses a fold over clasp for a watch band. Yamamoto US 7861383 discloses a watch band folder over clasp with side release buttons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights