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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2025-11-21 has been entered.
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, 11, 13-14, 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) and Helfer (US 2013/0188462).
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 copper, materials containing palladium, or 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).
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 and Helfer 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
Claims 2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, and further in view of Fussinger (US 2018/0173165).
Regarding claims 2 and 15-16, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1.
Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 does not show the non-magnetic material having a Vickers hardness of less than 400HV.
Fussinger teaches a non-magnetic alloy for a timepiece component (abstract) having a Vickers hardness of at least 300 HV ([0018]).
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 material of Besutti ‘416 for the alloy of Fussinger so that the material’s hardness is at least 300 HV. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to form a timepiece component resistant to wear ([0015 of Fussinger).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, and further in view of Delizee (US 2020/0019122).
Regarding claim 3, Besutti ‘416 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1.
Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 does not show the non-magnetic material being an alloy containing copper of the CuBe2 type.
Delizee teaches a non-magnetic material being an alloy containing copper of the CuBe2 type ([0017]).
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 material of Besutti ‘416 for the CuBe2 alloy of Delizee. 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 material would form a timepiece component resistant to wear and reduce material cost ([0048] of Delizee).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, and further in view of Charbon (US 2021/0103250).
Regarding claim 4, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1.
Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 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 for 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 claim 5, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 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 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 7, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1.
Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 does not show the non-magnetic alloy containing palladium comprising by weight: 25-55% palladium, 25-55% silver, 10-30% copper, 0-5% zinc, 0-2% rhenium, ruthenium, gold, or platinum, and 0-1% boron or nickel.
Charbon teaches a non-magnetic alloy ([0002]) comprising, by weight, 25-55% palladium, 25-55% silver, 10-30% copper, 0.5-5% zinc, 0-2% rhenium or ruthenium, and 0-1% boron or nickel (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 for 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 claim 8, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 and Charbon teaches the assembly, according to claim 7, wherein the non-magnetic material is an alloy comprising by weight between 38% and 43% of palladium, between 35% and 40% of silver, between 18% and 23% of copper, and between 0.5% and 1.5% of zinc (abstract of Charbon).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184, and further in view of Straumann (GB 867211).
Regarding claim 9, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 discloses the assembly, according to claim 1.
Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 does not show the non-magnetic material being an alloy containing aluminum comprising by weight: 83-94.5% aluminum, 4-7% zinc, 1-4% magnesium, 0.5-3% copper, and 0-3% chromium, silicon, manganese, titanium, or iron.
Straumann teaches a non-magnetic alloy for a timepiece component containing aluminum comprising by weight: 85.5-91.2% aluminum, 5.5-7% zinc, 2-3% magnesium, 1-2.5% copper, and 0.1-1% chromium, silicon, manganese, titanium, or iron (Alloy III in Table I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a non-magnetic alloy containing 83-94.5% aluminum, 4-7% zinc, 1-4% magnesium, 0.5-3% copper, and 0-3% chromium, silicon, manganese, titanium, or iron, because the courts have held that ranges that are merely close would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as having the same properties and possessing virtually negligible differences absent any criticality. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2144.05.I. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this composition to create non-magnetic, corrosion-resistant, easily machined, lighter timepiece component that reduces friction and bearing pressure (page 2, lines 24-31 of Straumann).
Regarding claim 10, Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 and Straumann discloses the assembly, according to claim 9.
Besutti ‘416 in view of Besutti ‘184 and Straumann discloses the non-magnetic alloy comprising by weight: 87.32-91.2% aluminum, 5.5-6.1% zinc, 2.1-2.9% magnesium, 1.2-2% copper, and 0.18-.28% chromium, 0-0.4% silicon, 0-0.3% manganese, 0-0.2% titanium, and 0-0.5% iron (Alloy III in Table I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen a non-magnetic alloy containing 87.32-91.42% aluminum and 5.1-6.1% zinc, because the courts have held that ranges that are merely close would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as having the same properties and possessing virtually negligible differences absent any criticality. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2144.05.I. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this composition to create non-magnetic, corrosion-resistant, easily machined, lighter timepiece component that reduces friction and bearing pressure (page 2, lines 24-31 of Straumann).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-10-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Helfer does not teach or suggest that the alleged edge, upper face, bearing face, peripheral border, and inner zone of Helfer provide any benefit regarding ‘improving reliability and positioning’ of the bearing.” However, paragraph 28 of Helfer, cited by in claim 1’s rejection and quoted in Applicant’s arguments, teaches that Helfer’s invention provides a system with improved reliability and positioning. Helfer’s edge, upper face, bearing face, peripheral border, and inner zone are part of Helfer’s invention, so these parts provide improved reliability and positioning.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
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.
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 2833
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833