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 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, 3, 6-7, 13, 15, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino (CH 710308) in view of Damasko (WO 2009049591).
Regarding claim 1, Fiaccabrino discloses (Fig. 1) a process for manufacturing a timepiece component ([0001] of Applicant’s translation) which is capable of thermally compensating a functional assembly comprising the timepiece component, wherein the process comprises: providing a substrate made of semiconductor material ([0033]) or metal material; then carrying out a deposition by growth of a silicon layer ([0024]), then forming the timepiece component entirely in the silicon layer (10 and [0033]-[0034]), in one piece (the component is a resonating spring, which is monolithic), and then releasing said timepiece component from the substrate ([0033]), wherein the process additionally comprises forming an oxide layer on a surface of the substrate before depositing the silicon layer ([0033]).
Fiaccabrino does not show the silicon being polycrystalline or monocrystalline and the deposition by growth being carried out on the substrate so that the deposition is carried out on the oxide layer.
Damasko teaches depositing, by growth, a polycrystalline- or monocrystalline-silicon layer ([0011], [0017]) on an oxide layer on a surface of a substrate of semiconductor material ([0061]).
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 Fiaccabrino’s deposition by growth method for Damasko’s deposition by growth method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known method for successfully producing functional elements.
Regarding claim 3, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process comprises etching the silicon layer before releasing the timepiece component ([0035]).
Regarding claims 6-7, the combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the deposition of the silicon layer includes depositing silicon by chemical vapor deposition or by physical vapor deposition ([0058], [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process additionally comprises oxidizing at least one surface of the timepiece component ([0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the timepiece component released from the substrate is an oscillator hairspring or an arrangement of flexible geometries forming an elastic virtual pivot ([0036]).
Regarding claim 23, Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the depositing is a depositing of a polycrystalline-silicon layer onto the substrate ([0017] and [0061]), the timepiece component being formed entirely in the polycrystalline-silicon layer (see claim 1 rejection) and having isotropic elastic properties. Page 8, lines 12-15 of Applicant’s specification disclose that components made of polycrystalline silicon have isotropic elastic properties, so Fiaccabrino’s timepiece component has isotropic elastic properties.
Regarding claim 24, Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 23, wherein at least a portion of the polycrystalline-silicon layer is grown epitaxially perpendicularly to a surface of the substrate. The polycrystalline-silicon layer is grown on top of the substrate ([0061]), so the layer is therefore grown perpendicular to the flat substrate surface.
Regarding claim 25, Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko discloses the process according to claim 1, wherein the substrate made of semiconductor comprises a starting surface formed of a polycrystalline silicon seeding layer before carrying out the deposition ([0061] of Damasko: “a starting layer…of polycrystalline silicon”).
Claims 4, 12, 16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko, and further in view of Despont (US 20200050150).
Regarding claim 4, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the process comprising a polishing step before etching the timepiece component.
Despont teaches a process comprises a polishing step before etching a timepiece component. Paragraph [0069] teaches an intermediate polishing step occurring after deposition to create a flat surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Despont’s step with Fiaccabrino’s process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to yield a timepiece component that has reduced friction and increased durability.
Regarding claim 12, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the process additionally comprising smoothing the timepiece component or adjusting dimensions of the timepiece component, by a succession of oxidations and oxide dissolutions ([0066] and [0075]).
Despont discloses a process for manufacturing a timepiece component, wherein the process additionally comprises smoothing the timepiece component or adjusting dimensions of the timepiece component, by a succession of oxidations and oxide dissolutions ([0066] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Despont’s step with Fiaccabrino’s process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to predictably create a functional, resonating timepiece component with desired stiffness.
Regarding claim 16, Fiaccabrino discloses (Fig. 10) a timepiece component (abstract of Fiaccabrino) for a timepiece which is entirely made of silicon (10 and abstract of Fiaccabrino) in one piece ([0036] of Fiaccabrino).
Fiaccabrino does not show the component being made of polycrystalline silicon by epitaxial growth.
Damasko teaches a timepiece component made of polycrystalline silicon ([0017]) in one piece ([0036]) by epitaxial growth ([0017]).
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show that the polycrystalline silicon is doped over an entire thickness of the polycrystalline silicon ([0015] and [0077]), or that the polycrystalline silicon comprises a surface-doped layer ([0034]-[0035]).
Despont teaches a timepiece component with polycrystalline, wherein the polycrystalline silicon is doped over an entire thickness of the polycrystalline silicon ([0015] and [0077]), and that the polycrystalline silicon comprises a surface-doped layer ([0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have doped Fiaccabrino’s silicon, as taught by Despont. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition to improve the component’s temperature compensation ([0015] of Despont).
Regarding claim 18, Fiaccabrino discloses the timepiece component for a timepiece as claimed in claim 16, wherein the timepiece component is a hairspring for an oscillator ([0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Fiaccabrino discloses the timepiece component for a timepiece as claimed in claim 16.
Fiaccabrino does not show that the timepiece component comprises a layer or portion made of silicon dioxide ([0016]).
Despont teaches a component with a portion of silicon dioxide ([0016]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Despont’s SiO2 portion with Fiaccabrino’s component. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a protective layer ([0016] of Despont).
Regarding claim 20, Fiaccabrino discloses a timepiece component as claimed in claim 16, wherein the oscillator comprises the timepiece component as claimed in claim 16 and a balance ([0023]), wherein the timepiece component is a hairspring ([0023]), and wherein the oscillator is thermally compensated ([0001]).
Regarding claim 22, Fiaccabrino discloses a timepiece comprising the timepiece component as claimed in claim 16 ([0037], [0001]-[0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Semon (US 20190212702).
Regarding claim 5, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the deposition of the silicon layer continuing until a height of greater than or equal to 80 microns is reached.
Semon teaches growing a layer of composite material that corresponds to a timepiece component ([0073]) having a height greater than 80 microns ([0071]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continued the deposition of the silicon layer of Fiaccabrino until the height of the layer is greater than 80 microns, as suggested by Semon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this construction to create a structure whose dimensions are appropriate for a timepiece so as to create a functional and accurate timepiece component ([0012] of Semon).
Claims 8, 10-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bossart (US 2017/0108831).
Regarding claim 8, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the silicon layer is doped ([0013]).
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the deposition of the silicon layer comprising simultaneously doping and growing a doped-silicon layer.
Bossart teaches the deposition of a silicon layer comprising simultaneous doping and growing ([0040]).
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 process of Fiaccabrino such that the silicon layer is doped as it is grown, as suggested by Bossart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as a known technique for doping silicon.
Regarding claim 10, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 8, wherein the silicon layer is doped ([0013]).
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the silicon layer being doped with antimony, arsenic, or phosphorus.
Bossart teaches doping silicon with antimony, arsenic, or phosphorus ([0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have doped Fiaccabrino’s silicon layer with antimony, arsenic, or phosphorus, as suggested by Bossart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose these dopants to obtain a thermo-compensated component resistant to temperature changes ([0023] of Bossart).
Regarding claim 11, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 8.
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the process comprising doping all or part of a volume of silicon to have an ion density greater than or equal to 10^18 at/cm^3.
Bossart teaches a timepiece component comprising heavily doped polycrystalline with an ion density greater than or equal to 10^18 at/cm^3 (abstract of Bossart).
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 polycrystalline silicon of Fiaccabrino for the polycrystalline silicon of Bossart ‘831. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of permitting thermo-compensation of the component (abstract of Bossart).
Regarding claim 14, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1.
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the substrate being provided in monocrystalline silicon.
Bossart teaches a substrate being provided in monocrystalline silicon ([0043]).
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 substrate of Fiaccabrino for the substrate of Bossart. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known substrate material for growing micromechanical components.
Regarding claim 17, Fiaccabrino discloses the timepiece component for a timepiece as claimed in claim 16, wherein the timepiece component is thermally compensated ([0013]).
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the component comprising heavily doped polycrystalline silicon with an ion density greater than or equal to 10^18 at/cm^3.
Bossart teaches a timepiece component comprising heavily doped polycrystalline with an ion density greater than or equal to 10^18 at/cm^3 (abstract of Bossart).
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 polycrystalline silicon of Fiaccabrino for the polycrystalline silicon of Bossart ‘831. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of permitting thermo-compensation of the component (abstract of Bossart).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kohler (US 20170176942).
Regarding claim 9, Fiaccabrino discloses the process for manufacturing a timepiece component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the silicon layer is doped ([0034]).
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not show the silicon layer being doped by diffusion or ionic implantation of a dopant.
Kohler teaches doping silicon by diffusion ([0068]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have doped the silicon layer of Fiaccabrino by diffusion, as suggested by Kohler. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this method because it is a known, predictable solution for doping silicon.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Huot-Marchand (US 20200096943).
Regarding claim 21, Fiaccabrino discloses an oscillator ([0036]) for a timepiece ([0037]), wherein the oscillator comprises the timepiece component as claimed in claim 16, and wherein the component is thermally compensated ([0015]-[0016]).
The combination of Fiaccabrino and Damasko does not explicitly show that the timepiece component has flexible guidance.
Huot-Marchand teaches a micromachinable timepiece component for a resonator having flexible guidance ([0006]).
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 component to have flexible guidance, as disclosed by Huot-Marchand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure a consistent oscillation frequency ([0006] of Huot-Marchand).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko, and further in view of Otani et al. (JP 2001294499).
Regarding claim 26, Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko discloses the process according to claim 1, wherein the substrate made of semiconductor comprises a starting surface formed of a polycrystalline silicon seeding layer before carrying out the deposition ([0061] of Damasko: “a starting layer…of polycrystalline silicon”).
The combination of Fiaccabrino in view of Damasko does not show the carrying out of the deposition includes seeding the silicon layer again.
Otani teaches a forming starting surface formed of a silicon seeding layer, carrying out a deposition of growth, and then seeding the silicon layer again ([0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have seeded Fiaccabrino’s starting surface again during growth, as suggested by Otani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this addition to the process because it produces a high quality, even surface ([0007] of Otani).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. In particular, Applicant’s argument that the cited art does not show growing a crystal silicon layer on a substrate has been rendered moot by new prior art, Damasko teaching the amended limitation.
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 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 2831
Prosecution Insights