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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 3/10/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 17/603,349 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claims 1, 4, 8, 14-15, and 18-19 and cancellation of claims 3, 5, and 9 are acknowledged. These amendments overcome the previous claim objection to claims 1 and 14-15. These amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 recites the limitation “Metglas”. The use of the terms “Metglas”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8, 10-15 and 17-20 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.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites the limitation “the group consisting of metal based alloys based on Cr, Co,Cu, and/or Ni. cobalt- based austenitic super alloys, maraging steels, multiphase cobalt alloys, and amorphous alloys” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-15 and 17-20 depend from claim 8 and are rejected therein.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites the limitation “the group consisting of an austenitic cobalt-based alloy known by the tradename phynox®, a martensitic nickel-cobalt- molybdenum-containing alloy known by the tradename phytime®, an octavariant cobalt-based alloy known by the tradename nivaflex®, and a spinodal copper-based, nickel-tin-containing alloy known by the tradename pfinodal®” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites the limitation “the group consisting of Co50, Vitreloys, and Metglas” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya (EP 2237116 A2) in view of Wyssbrod (US 20110002198 A1), Gluche (EP 2727880 A1, hereinafter “Gluche”), and Ohashi et al. (EP 0422760 A1, hereinafter “Ohashi”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kamiya discloses a cam-type horological component comprising:
at least one part (210) of substantially flat form [figs. 5-6] made of one of several forms of a metallic glass alloy [0008, 0077-0078] including a cobalt based metallic glass alloy [0051] which is a material having a hardness greater than or equal to 600 HV,
and comprising at least one functional flank (edge of cam) [figs. 5-6] substantially perpendicular to a main surface of the part [figs. 5-6]
wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of metal based alloys based on Cr, Co, Cu, and/or Ni. cobalt-based austenitic super alloys, maraging steels, multiphase cobalt alloys, and amorphous alloys (metallic glass alloy which is an amorphous alloy) [0008, 0077-0078].
Kamiya does not explicitly disclose that the cam-type at least one part has a thickness greater than or equal to 350 microns or that the functional flank has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 50 nm.
It is a well-known technique to configure the thickness of the rotating component of the clock to be around 500 micrometers or less as suggested in Wyssbrod [0068]. A person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of adopting the dimensions well known in the art for related components as provided by Wyssbrod and apply it to the cam of Kamiya. Doing so would be a simple design choice for the cam component established by Kamiya and adjusting the relative dimensions of the components is a skill easily accomplished by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Gluche teaches that a flank (4) [Fig. 2b] of a micromechanical watch component, including a multitude of various components used in timepiece movements [0023], may have a roughness of less than 20 nanometers [0037] and the thickness of the at least one part is greater than or equal to 400 microns [0038]. While not of the same material as the amorphous alloys disclosed by Kamiya, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Gluche that modifying the surface roughness of the material to less than 20 nanometers is advantageous. Ohashi discloses that a thin amorphous alloy material made from cobalt can be mirror finished to reach surface roughness of the material to Ra less than 50 nm [page 8 lines 26-28] . From the teaching of Gluche that it is advantageous to achieve a surface roughness Ra of less than 20 nanometres in a similar component, and Ohashi disclosing that doing so is possible for such a material, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cobalt based amorphous alloy of Kamiya and Wyssbrod to include a functional flank surface roughness less than 20 nanometers.
Regarding Claim 10, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, and Wyssbrod further provides for providing a thickness for such timepiece components greater than or equal to 430 microns [0068].
Regarding Claim 11, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, and Kamiya further discloses that the component has a flat main surface and the at least one substantially perpendicular functional flank extends from the flat main surface and has an angle in a range of from 89 to 91 degrees inclusive with respect to the flat main surface [figs. 3, 5-6].
Regarding Claim 12, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, and Gluche provides the teaching in this combination that the at least one functional flank has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 40 nm [0037].
Regarding Claim 13, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, and Kamiya further discloses that the cam-type horological component is a cam (210), a spiral or notched cam snail, a shuttle or a column-wheel.
Regarding Claim 14, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the horological component as claimed in claim 8 and Kamiya further disclose a horological movement [0022] [fig. 2] comprising the horological component as claimed in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the horological movement as claimed in claim 14 and Kamiya further disclose a timepiece [0029] comprising the horological movement as claimed in claim 14.
Regarding Claim 17, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, and Wyssbrod further provides for providing a thickness greater than or equal to 400 microns [0068].
Regarding Claim 20, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 12, and Gluche provides the teaching in this combination that the at least one functional flank has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 30 nm [0037].
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Le Bris (WO 2019092665 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, but do not disclose wherein the material is a multiphase cobalt alloy selected from the group consisting of an austenitic cobalt-based alloy known by the tradename phynox®, a martensitic nickel-cobalt- molybdenum-containing alloy known by the tradename phytime®, an octavariant cobalt-based alloy known by the tradename nivaflex®, and a spinodal copper-based, nickel-tin-containing alloy known by the tradename pfinodal®.
Le Bris discloses that the material selection for a system like that including a cam [] can advantageously include Nivaflex as an alternative to a metal glass [page 16, lines 3-7]. It would have been obvious from the disclosure of Le Bris that a simple substation of material would be possible for the material of the cam component from the cobalt based amorphous alloy to a multiphase cobalt alloy given the suggestion of the two types of material as reasonable alternatives.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Levingston (US 2007/0140065) and Metglas FAQ, 10 June 2011, full document, retrieved on 1 July 2016 from <http://www.metglas.com/faq/?faq_id=21> (NPL source, hereinafter “Metglas”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kamiya, Wyssbrod, Gluche, and Ohashi disclose the cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 8, with Kamiya providing for the material to be an amorphous alloy [0008, 0077-0078] and Wyssbrod further provides for providing a thickness greater than or equal to 400 microns [0068]. Kamiya does not specifically disclose that the amorphous ally material is selected from the group consisting of Co50, Vitreloys, and Metglas.
Levingston discloses spring metal alloys historically are susceptible to magnetism and a non-linear modulation of thermoelastic modulus [0027] and materials including glass, ceramics, and intermetallic compounds that are non-magnetically sensitive in general help to solve these problems [0030],[0074], [0076]. Furthermore, Metglas discloses metallic glasses are typically used in magnetic shielding applications, see pg. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the Le Bris and Gluche as suggested by Levingston and Metglas because doing so helps to further prevent the susceptibility of the device to outside magnetic fields while maintaining sufficient hardness for component manufacturing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, prior art does not disclose the method for manufacturing a cam-type horological component as claimed in claim 1 with the specific parameters for the first and second laser sources meeting the limitations “wherein the first, MASTER laser source is a green laser with an average power at mid-height less than or equal to 50 W with a pulse duration in a range of from 80 to 400 ns and a frequency in a range of from 6 to 20 kHz, and the second, SLAVE laser source is a green laser with an average power at mid-height less than or equal to 20 W with a pulse duration in a range of from 7 to 20 ns and a frequency in a range of from 80 to 130 kHz” in addition to the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 16 depend from claim 1 and are allowable therein.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 a.m. - 7p.m. ET.
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.
/KEVIN ANDREW JOHNSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights