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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6 “protruded from hollows” should read “protruded from the hollows”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11-13, 15-16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9423772 to Fernandez Ciurleo et al. (hereafter “Fernandez Ciurleo”) in view of US Pat. No. 3451869 to Nydegger (hereafter “Nydegger”).
Regarding Claim 9, Fernandez Ciurleo discloses an item [10] made from cermet and/or ceramic [Col. 3, lines 23-34], comprising at least two materials differentiated through the chemical composition thereof [Col. 4, lines 1-4, discloses that the two materials are different colors, which would require different chemical composition], said two materials being a ceramic or a cermet [Col. 3, lines 23-34], wherein it includes a part where the two materials are superimposed and are interleaved one in the other [Figs. 1 and 4-5], wherein one of the two materials includes hollows filled with the other material [Figs. 4-5].
Fernandez Ciurleo does not disclose that the other material is protruded from [the] hollows and is more so protruded from the hollows than is included in the hollows.
Nydegger teaches an item comprising at least two materials [“dial plate” and “index character”], wherein it includes a part where the two materials are superimposed and are interleaved one in the other [Fig. 2], wherein one of the two materials includes hollows filled with the other material [Fig. 2], wherein the other material is protruded from [the] hollows and is more so protruded from the hollows than is included in the hollows [Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the item disclosed by Fernandez Ciurleo to incorporate the principle of protruding from the hollows, more so than is included in the hollows, as taught by Nydegger with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create this combination in order to craft a bezel with a unique 3-dimensional decoration and/or tactile features which would be easily readable by a sight-impaired user.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the hollows have a minimum depth of 0.2 mm [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 1, lines 60-61, discloses a depth up to 500 µm = 0.5 mm].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the hollows are present in a number between 1 and 10 [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 1, lines 7-10, discloses “a ceramic element inlaid with at least one composite ceramic decoration”, Fig. 1 shows a plurality, and Fig. 4 shows two hollows; Nydegger: Fig. 1 shows two hollows].
The combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger does not teach that the hollows have a surface area of 10 mm2.
However, no scale is given for the inlaid element 10. Depending on the exact size of the body 11 and the decoration 13 comprising inlaid element 10, the at least one recess 12 could easily have been conceived to have an area of 10 mm2 by a person having ordinary skill in the art. This would be so as to meet a particular aesthetic appearance.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the item is an external or movement horological component [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 3, lines 4-7].
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the two materials are distinguished through their color [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 4, lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the item is a bezel [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 3, lines 4-7] with at least two distinct colors [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 4, lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the number is between 1 and 3 [Fernandez Ciurleo: Col. 1, lines 7-10, discloses “a ceramic element inlaid with at least one composite ceramic decoration”, Fig. 1 shows a plurality, and Fig. 4 shows two hollows; Nydegger: Fig. 1 shows two hollows].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger teaches that the two materials are interleaved one in the other at the hollows, and wherein the other material, of which the hollows is filled, is contiguous from one of the hollows to an other of the hollows [Nydegger Fig. 1].
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Ciurleo in view of Nydegger as applied to Claim 16, and further in view of US PGPub 20160246260 to Iten (hereafter “Iten”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo and Nydegger does not teach that a first colour occupies a first arc of a circle and a second colour occupies a second arc of a circle supplementing the first arc of a circle to form the circle of the bezel.
Iten teaches a bezel [5] wherein a first colour occupies a first arc of a circle and a second colour occupies a second arc of a circle supplementing the first arc of a circle to form the circle of the bezel [Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the inlaying technique taught by Fernandez Ciurleo (in combination with Nydegger) to produce a bezel with the appearance taught by Iten with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create this combination in order to create a diving watch with a minimum time warning.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo, Nydegger, and Iten teaches that the first arc of a circle has a size less than the second arc of a circle [Iten: Fig. 1].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Ciurleo in view of Nydegger and Iten as applied to Claim 18, and further in view of the Watchuseek thread “why is the first 15 minute on the bezel marked different from the rest?” (answer posted 4 February 2008, NPL attached).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo, Nydegger, and Iten does not teach that the first arc of a circle occupies a quarter of a circle and the second arc of a circle occupies three-quarters of a circle.
Watchuseek teaches a bezel wherein the first arc of a circle occupies a quarter of a circle and the second arc of a circle occupies three-quarters of a circle [see image in attached NPL].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the color arrangement taught by the combination of Fernandez Ciurleo, Nydegger, and Iten to conform to the color arrangement taught by Watchuseek with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to create this combination in order to provide a dive watch with a shorter minimum time warning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SEAN BRANNON whose telephone number is 571-270-1191. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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 on 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.
/SEAN BRANNON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/EDWIN A. LEON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
