DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 02/17/2026, claims 11-17 and 19-26 are pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn based on restriction requirement. Claim 11 is currently amended. Claims 11-17, 19, and 21-26 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112 (a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument.
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16, 19, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102313244B1 “Jung et al” hereinafter Jung), machine translation provided in the Office Action dated 12/10/2024, US6,375,864 (“Phillips et al” hereinafter Phillips), US2010/0075069 (“Laney et al” hereinafter Laney), and JP2011/106937 (Matsui), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/04/2025.
Regarding Claim 11, Jung teaches a method for manufacturing a luminescent timepiece component for a portable object (abstract, method for manufacturing a phosphorescent plastic article with phosphorescence effect), the method comprising:
mixing a polymer base with said pre-mixture (page 2, lines 32-34, a raw material mixing step (S103) of mixing a phosphorescent pigment with the synthetic resin powder) and extruding a first time the mixture obtained to obtain a homogeneous polymer mixture (page 3, lines 8-12, the extrusion step (S105) is a step of extruding the mixture prepared through the raw material mixing step (S103) with a twin-screw extruder. As the mixture are being mixed, photoluminescent pigments are evenly dispersed within the raw material mixture and a homogeneous mixture is obtained);
extruding a second time the homogeneous polymer mixture (page 3, lines 20-26, a second extrusion step (S111) of extruding the mixture is performed) to form a strip of a predetermined thickness (Due to lack of specific definition in the instant specification, any thickness of strip will read upon the claim. In this case, the final product of the second extrusion is a film/strip/sheet with some thickness).
Jung fails to teach producing a pre-mixture of a phosphorescent pigment in an amount of 10 to 40% by weight, a fluorescent pigment in an amount of 1 to 4% by weight and a plasticizer in a maximum amount of 10% by weight.
However, Phillips teaches producing a pre-mixture of a phosphorescent pigment in an amount of 10 to 40% by weight (Col. 3, line 64-Col. 4, line 2, 1% to 15% of weight of a non-radioactive, non-sulfide phosphorescent phosphor pigment), a fluorescent pigment in an amount of 1 to 4% by weight (Col. 4, lines 3-4, 0.001% to 1% by weight of at least one polymer-soluble daylight fluorescent dye) and a plasticizer in a maximum amount of 10% by weight (col. 4, line 25-27, it is also preferable to employ small amounts of a lubricating agent in the resin composition (e.g., 1% to 10% by weight) to aid in dispersing of the phosphorescent pigment and other ingredients. The lubricating agent functions to help dispersing the pigment which is the same function as a plasticizer).
Jung and Phillips are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using phosphorescent materials to formed a phosphorescent plastic article that is luminescent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Jung such that it teaches all of the above discussed limitation as taught by Phillips to produces a composition of phosphorescent that is suitable for molding, extruding, or forming a phosphorescent plastic article having a daylight color and a similarly colored phosphorescent glow in the dark (Col. 3, lines 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selected the overlapping ranges to form the desired end product with a desired property. Furthermore, since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Jung fails to explicitly teach the strip is in the form of two portions, a first portion obtained from the second extrusion, and a second portion formed by a strip made of a white polymer material.
However, Laney teaches a coextrusion process ([0018]) resulted in the strip (Figure 1(a)) is in the form of two portions (Figure 1(a)), a first portion obtained from the second extrusion (Figure 1(a), optical layer 110), and a second portion formed by a strip made of a white polymer material (Figure 1(a), base layer 120 with a high weight percent of a white pigment such as TiO2 or BaSO4 [0034]).
Jung (abstract) and Laney ([0063]) are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using extrusion to generates liquid crystal displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Jung such that it teaches all of the above discussed limitation as taught by to Laney to provide high reflectivity ([0034]). The patentability of product by process claims is determined by the patentability of the product. The product of the modified Jung appears to be identical to that which is claimed. The burden is upon applicants to provide evidence that the prior at product of Jin does not possess the characteristics of the claimed product. MPEP 2113 (II)).
The modified Jung fails to teach cutting the strip to obtain the desired luminescent timepiece component.
Matsui teaches cutting the strip to obtain the desired luminescent timepiece component (page 9, lines 14-18, after the dial was produced, the dial were cut and polished to obtain a substate).
Jung and Matsui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using resin material to generates a plastic article that is light transmissive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Jung to cut the strip to obtain the desired luminescent timepiece component as taught by Matsui to cut the product into desired shapes (page 9, lines 14-18).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein the polymer base is a thermoplastic polymer base (Jung, page 2, lines 49-52, the synthetic resin might be polycarbonate which is a known thermoplastic polymer).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein the polymer base is transparent at wavelengths of the near ultra-violet spectrum and at wavelengths of the visible spectrum ([0019] of instant specification discloses polycarbonate as an example for polymer base and is both transparent at wavelengths of the near ultra-violet spectrum and at wavelengths of the visible spectrum. Jung also discloses the synthetic resin might be polycarbonate, page 2, lines 49-52, and as property of polycarbonate, it is transparent at wavelengths of the near ultra-violet spectrum and at wavelengths of the visible spectrum).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein the thermoplastic polymer base is selected from polycarbonate (Jung, page 2, lines 49-52, the synthetic resin might be polycarbonate).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11 wherein the first extrusion is performed via a twin-screw extruder (Jung, page 3, lines 8-12, extrusion step (S105) is equipped with a twin screw extruder).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein the luminescent timepiece component formed is a dial or a hand (Matsui, page 9, lines 14-18).
Regarding Claim 22, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein the fluorescent pigment is at least one selected from the group consisting of europium 1,3- diphenyl-1,3-propanedionate-1,10-phenantrolin, doped gadolinium oxysulphide, doped magnesium and barium aluminate (Phillips, Col. 5, lines 14-23), doped lithium aluminate, and doped strontium molybdate.
Regarding Claim 26, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the pre-mixture comprises the fluorescent pigment in an amount of 4% by weight.
As the cost and tinctorial strength of the pigments are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said weight percentage of fluorescent pigment in the pre-mixture as disclosed by Phillips (Col. 3, lines 38-45), with said construction cost and tinctorial strength both increasing as the weight percentage of fluorescent pigment in the pre-mixture is increased as disclosed by Phillips (Col. 3, lines 38-45), the precise weight percentage of fluorescent pigment in the pre-mixture would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed weight percentage of fluorescent pigment in the pre-mixture cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the weight percentage of fluorescent pigment in the pre-mixture in the method of the modified Jung to obtain the desired balance between the cost and the tinctorial strength (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102313244B1 “Jung et al” hereinafter Jung), machine translation provided in the last Office Action, US6,375,864 (“Phillips et al” hereinafter Phillips), US2010/0075069 (“Laney et al” hereinafter Laney), and JP2011/106937 (Matsui), machine translation provided in the Office Action dated 12/10/2024, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US2014/0218803 (“Labrot et al” hereinafter Labrot).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the extruded strip is cooled at ambient temperature.
Labrot teaches the extruded strip is cooled at ambient temperature (the instant specification fails to provide specific definition for an ambient temperature. The Examiner is interpreting the limitation “ambient temperature” as the air temperature of any object or environment where equipment is stored. Labrot discloses after the film, comprises thermoplastics mixture and luminescent pigment is extruded, the film is cooled which can take place, for example, using air or by quenching with water [0015]). Thus, as the film is cooled using air or by quenching with water, it is being cooled to the temperature of the air or water which is the ambient temperature.
Jung and Labrot are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using phosphorescent materials to formed a phosphorescent plastic article that is luminescent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Jung such the extruded strip is cooled at ambient temperature as taught by Labrot to cool down the film in order to further solidify the film ([0015]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102313244B1 “Jung et al” hereinafter Jung), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 12/10/2024, US6,375,864 (“Phillips et al” hereinafter Phillips), US2010/0075069 (“Laney et al” hereinafter Laney), and JP2011/106937 (Matsui), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/04/2025, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of WO2016/198496 (“Miozzo et al” hereinafter Miozzo).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, Jung teaches the same extrusion step (S111) is processed in the same manner as described in the extrusion step (S105) (page 3, lines 39-40) which comprises a twin-screw extruder (page 3, lines 8-12) but fails to teach wherein the second extrusion is performed via a single-screw extruder.
However, Miozzo teaches the extrusion can be performed using either a single-screw extruder or a twin-screw extruder ([0057]).
Jung and Miozzo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using phosphorescent materials to formed a phosphorescent plastic article that is luminescent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Jung such that the second extrusion is performed via a single-screw extruder as taught by Miozzo because the substitution of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to perform the extrusion that is well known in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102313244B1 “Jung et al” hereinafter Jung), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 12/10/2024, US6,375,864 (“Phillips et al” hereinafter Phillips), US2010/0075069 (“Laney et al” hereinafter Laney), and JP2011/106937 (Matsui), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/04/2025, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US2018/0095427 (“Francois et al” hereinafter Francois).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, Phillips teaches using polymer-soluble daylight fluorescent dye but fails to teach the fluorescent pigment is fluorescein.
However, Francois teaches the fluorescent pigment can be chosen from fluorescein ([0025]).
Jung and Francois are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using resin material to generates a timepieces that is light transmissive. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluorescent dye disclosed by the modified Jung by fluorescein as taught by Francois because utilizing one known luminescent dye material in place of another luminescent dye material also suitability in the field of making light transmissive timepiece is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 24, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, Jung teaches the polymer base is made of polymethyl methacrylate (page 1, lines 52-54) but fails to teach wherein the polymer base is polyamide.
However, Francois teaches the polymer base is selected from polymethyl methacrylate or polyamide.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer based made of polymethyl methacrylate disclosed by the modified Jung by the polymer base made of polyamide as taught by Francois because utilizing one known polymer base material in place of another polymer base material also suitability in the field of making light transmissive timepiece is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 25, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, Jung teaches the polymer base is made of polymethyl methacrylate (page 1, lines 52-54) but fails to teach wherein the polymer base is methylmethacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.
However, Francois teaches the polymer base is selected from polymethyl methacrylate or methylmethacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ([0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer based made of polymethyl methacrylate disclosed by the modified Jung by the polymer base made of methylmethacrylate acrylonitrile butadiene styrene as taught by Francois because utilizing one known polymer base material in place of another polymer base material also suitability in the field of making light transmissive timepiece is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102313244B1 “Jung et al” hereinafter Jung), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 12/10/2024, US6,375,864 (“Phillips et al” hereinafter Phillips), US2010/0075069 (“Laney et al” hereinafter Laney), and JP2011/106937 (Matsui), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/04/2025, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US2003/0227003 (“Brown et al” hereinafter Brown).
Regarding Claim 23, the modified Jung teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 11, Phillips teaches it is also preferable to employ small amounts of a lubricating agent in the resin composition (e.g., 1% to 10% by weight) to aid in dispersing of the phosphorescent pigment and other ingredients (col. 4, line 25-27). The lubricating agent functions to help dispersing the pigment which is the same function as a plasticizer but fails to teach wherein the plasticizer is a polydimethoxysilane.
However, Brown teaches the plasticizer is a polydimethoxysilane ([0056]).
Jung and Brown are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using resin material to generates a phosphorescent article. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the modified Jung such that the plasticizer is a polydimethoxysilane as taught by Brown to increase the floatability of the pigment in water, which indicates that the pigment is more protected thus forming a material less likely to react with the resin during compounding ([0057]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights