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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5-6, 11, 13-16, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besutti ‘416 (US 2019/0146416) in view of Besutti ‘184 (US 2021/0169184), Helfer (US 2013/0188462), and Charbon (US 20210103250).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Besutti ‘416 discloses (Figs. 1-2) an assembly (Figs. 4, 7-8) for a timepiece, comprising a rotary wheel and a bearing ([0001]), including a jewel (2), the rotary wheel being provided with at least one pivot ([0004]) including at least partly a non-magnetic material ([0058]), the bearing including a face (21b) provided with a hole (20) formed in the body of the bearing and with a functional geometry at the entrance of the hole (20), wherein the functional geometry has the shape of a cone (19 and [0016]), wherein the non-magnetic material of the pivot comprises an alloy to be chosen from materials containing aluminum ([0058]), and wherein the jewel comprises an upper face (24) and a lower face (19), the lower face including the cone shape (19 and [0049]), and the upper face comprising an edge (upper corners of 24 in Figs. 1-2) that defines a border of the upper face and an inner zone including a bearing face ([0048]).
Besutti ‘416 does not show the angle of the cone shape being between 45 and 90 degrees.
Besutti ‘184 teaches the angle of a cone shape (34 in Fig. 7) for a bearing being between 60 and 90 degrees ([0060]).
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 the cone shape of Besutti ‘416 so that it has an angle between 60 and 120 degrees to facilitate easy insertion of a pivot ([0060] of Besutti ‘184).
The combination of Besutti ‘416 and Besutti ‘184 does not show the upper face’s edge defining a peripheral border of the upper face and an inner zone including a bearing face.
Helfer teaches an upper face comprising an edge that defines a peripheral border of the upper face and defines an inner zone including a bearing face (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 the upper face of Besutti ‘416 so that its edge defines a peripheral border of the upper face and an inner zone including a bearing face. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a shock absorbent bearing with improved reliability and positioning ([0028] of Helfer).
Besutti ‘416 does not show the non-magnetic alloy containing palladium comprising by weight: 25-55% palladium, 25-55% silver, 10-30% copper, 0.5-5% zinc, 5-25% gold and platinum, 0-1% boron or nickel, 0-3% rhenium or ruthenium, at most 0.1% iridium, osmium, or rhodium, and at most 0.2% other impurities, such that the percentage of these quantities adds to 100%.
Charbon teaches a non-magnetic alloy ([0002]) comprising, by weight, 25-55% palladium, 25-55% silver, 10-30% copper, 0.5-5% zinc, 5-25% gold and platinum, 0-1% boron or nickel, 0-3% rhenium or ruthenium, at most 0.1% iridium, osmium, or rhodium, and at most 0.2% other impurities, such that the percentage of these quantities adds to 100% (abstract).
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 the non-magnetic alloy of Besutti ‘416 with the alloy of Charbon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known material for predictably forming timepiece components. Additionally, such a composition would limit sensitivity to magnetic fields, increase wear and shock resistance, improve corrosion resistance, and lower manufacturing cost ([0009]-[0011] of Charbon).
Regarding claims 2 and 15-16, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, Helfer, and Charbon discloses the assembly, according to claim 1, wherein the non-magnetic material has a Vickers hardness less than 400 HV ([0030] and [0033] of Charbon disclose that Charbon’s alloy will have a hardness of 370 HV < 400 HV).
Regarding claim 5, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, Helfer, and Charbon discloses the assembly, according to claim 4, wherein the non-magnetic material is an alloy comprising by weight: between 30% and 40% of palladium, between 25% and 35% of silver, between 10% and 18% of copper, between 0.5% and 1.5% of zinc, and the alloy comprises by weight gold and platinum with a total percentage of these two elements between 16% and 24% ([0022] of Charbon).
Regarding claim 6, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, Helfer, and Charbon discloses the assembly, according to claim 5, wherein the non-magnetic alloy is an alloy comprising by weight: 34-36% palladium, 29-31% silver, 13.5-14.5% copper, 0.8-1.2% zinc, 9.5-10.5% gold, 9.5-10.5% platinum, at most 0.1% iridium, osmium, rhodium, or ruthenium, and at most 0.2% other impurities, such that the percentage of these quantities adds to 100% ([0062] of Charbon).
Regarding claim 11, Besutti ‘416 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1, wherein the jewel comprises Al2O3 alumina ([0058]).
Regarding claim 13, Besutti ‘416 discloses (Fig. 1) the assembly, according to claim 1, wherein the hole is a through-hole (20), in such a way as to connect said cone to the upper face of said jewel (B in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Besutti ‘416 discloses a timepiece comprising an assembly according to claim 1 ([0001]).
Regarding claim 18, Besutti ‘416 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1, wherein the inner zone is concentrically convex from the bearing face to the hole. Fig. 1 shows that 24 is concentrically convex.
Regarding claim 19, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, Helfer, and Charbon discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the edge forms a ledge surrounding the upper face (see image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
211
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-06-18 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that substituting Charbon’s alloy for Besutti ‘416’s non-magnetic alloy would not have been obvious because Charbon’s alloy is for a hard, layered pivot arbor; the alloy would therefore not be that useful in Besutti ‘416’s jewel with a conical hole because the Besutti ‘416’s pivot arbor is already protected.
However, using Charbon’s alloy in a jewel having a conical hole would provide additional protection for redundancy/security, and it would have been obvious to use the strongest, most suitable material to ensure maximum protection. Charbon is cited only for the specific alloy/composition taught. This alloy may be used not just to make pivot arbors, but for a broad variety of metal and horological components. The rejection notes that Charbon’s alloy would limit sensitivity to magnetic fields, increase wear and shock resistance, improve corrosion resistance, and lower manufacturing cost ([0009]-[0011] of Charbon). Regardless of Charbon’s pivot arbor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Charbon’s alloy for the device of Besutti for the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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 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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights