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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026, has been entered.
Specification
The objection to the title is withdrawn in view of applicants’ submission of a replacement title.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 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) 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2014/0083353 to Pope, et al. (hereinafter “Pope”) or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0081456 to Amit Goyal (“Goyal”).
Regarding claim 1, Pope teaches a method for manufacturing a monocrystalline sapphire seed (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and the entire reference which teach a method for manufacturing a monocrystalline sapphire seed),
the monocrystalline sapphire seed having a rhombohedral crystallographic structure defining three crystallographic axes [A], [C] and [M] perpendicular to each other and respectively perpendicular to crystallographic planes A (11-20), C (0001) and M (10-10) (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach the use of a sapphire single crystal seed (119) which necessarily possesses a rhombohedral crystal structure with [A], [C] and [M] axes and planes),
the monocrystalline sapphire seed being a plate shape delimited by two planar faces which extend parallel to and at a distance from each other, and a side face delimiting a side of the plate shape in a thickness direction of the plate shape and corresponding to the distance between the two planar faces (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach that the sapphire single crystal seed (119) is broadly in the form of a plate defined by at least two planar faces either on opposing edges (146) or (148) or on opposing surfaces (142) or (162) which are parallel to and separated from each other by a thickness of the plate),
the monocrystalline sapphire seed being obtained from an initial sapphire single-crystal that is cut so that one of the crystallographic axes [A], [C] or [M] of the monocrystalline sapphire seed forms, with a normal to the planar faces of the monocrystalline sapphire seed, an angle whose value is comprised between 5 and 85° (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the monocrystalline sapphire seed (119) and, hence, the grown sapphire ribbon (160) has a top surface (162) with an [A]-plane orientation while a long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55°; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane as in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 5 and 85° would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may be performed to achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Goyal and would be motivated to manufacture a sapphire seed crystal for EFG growth with opposing primary planar faces (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) which are comprised of A-, C-, or M-planes whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5° to 20° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 3, Pope teaches a method for manufacturing a sapphire single-crystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and the entire reference which teach a method for manufacturing monocrystalline sapphire), the method comprising
a step of melting alumina and/or sapphire in a crucible (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach forming molten alumina (114) in a crucible (112)),
then bringing the melting alumina and/or sapphire in contact with the monocrystalline sapphire seed obtained by implementing the method according to claim 1 in order to make the melting alumina and/or sapphire crystallize progressively according to a growth direction to form the sapphire single-crystal (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that a seed crystal (119) having an orientation which produces the sapphire crystal in Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] is brought into contact with the melt (114) in order to grow a sapphire crystal (120) having the desired crystal structure and orientation).
Regarding claim 6, Pope teaches a method for manufacturing a sapphire single-crystal obtained by crystallisation in a molten state at a top of a die (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-8, and the entire reference which teach a method for manufacturing a monocrystalline sapphire seed by crystallization at the top of a die (117)), the method comprising
a step of melting alumina and/or sapphire in a crucible (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach forming molten alumina (114) in a crucible (112)),
then bringing throughout channels of the die the molten alumina and/or sapphire in contact with a monocrystalline sapphire seed obtained beforehand in order to make the molten alumina and/or sapphire crystallize progressively according to a growth direction to form the sapphire single-crystal (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the melt (114) travels through a die (117) and a monocrystalline sapphire seed (119) is brought into contact with the melt (114) in order to progressively grow a sapphire single crystal (120)),
the monocrystalline sapphire seed having a rhombohedral crystallographic structure defining three crystallographic axes [A], [C] and [M] perpendicular to each other and respectively perpendicular to crystallographic planes A (11-20), C (0001) and M (10-10) of the rhombohedral structure (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach the use of a sapphire single crystal seed (119) which necessarily possesses a rhombohedral crystal structure with [A], [C] and [M] axes and planes),
the monocrystalline sapphire seed being a first plate shape delimited by two planar faces which extend parallel to and at a distance from each other, and a side face delimiting a side of the plate shape in a thickness direction of the plate shape and corresponding to the distance between the two planar faces, one of the crystallographic axes [A], [C] or [M] being perpendicular to the planar faces of the monocrystalline sapphire seed, the first monocrystalline sapphire seed being inclined by an angle whose value is comprised between 5 and 85° with respect to a perpendicular to a plane defined by the channels of the die (see Figs. 2 & 4-5, ¶¶[0021]-[0023], and ¶¶[0025]-[0026], and claim 2 which teach that the sapphire single crystal seed (119) is broadly in the form of a plate defined by at least two planar faces either on opposing edges (146) or (148) or on opposing surfaces (142) or (162) which are parallel to and separated from each other by a thickness of the plate; see also Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the monocrystalline sapphire seed (119) and, hence, the grown sapphire ribbon (160) has a top surface (162) with an [A]-plane orientation while a long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55°; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range),
the sapphire single-crystal resulting from the crystalline growth being a monocrystalline sapphire plate delimited by two planar faces which extend parallel to and at a distance from each other (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the grown sapphire single crystal (120) is grown by the EFG method and is in the form of a single crystal defined by two parallel planar faces which are a distance from each other),
the monocrystalline sapphire plate having a disorientation of one of its crystallographic axes [A], [M] or [C] with respect to a normal to its planar faces which corresponds to the inclination by the angle of the monocrystalline sapphire seed with respect to the channels of the die (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the grown sapphire ribbon (160) has a top surface (162) with an [A]-plane orientation while a long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55°; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 5 and 85° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Goyal and would be motivated to manufacture a sapphire seed crystal for EFG growth with opposing planar faces (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) which are comprised of A-, C-, or M-planes whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5° to 20° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 7, Pope teaches that the crystallographic axis [A], [M] or [C] forms with the normal to the planar faces of the monocrystalline sapphire seed an angle whose value is comprised between 25 and 35° (See Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55° which touches the claimed range; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 25 and 35° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pope and Goyal and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal miscut angle for the primary A-, C-, or M-planes planes of the seed and grown crystal (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 25 to 35° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
Regarding claim 9, Pope teaches that the crystallographic axis [A], [M] or [C] forms with the normal to the planar faces of the monocrystalline sapphire seed an angle whose value is comprised between 5 and 15° (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 5 and 15° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pope and Goyal and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal miscut angle for the primary A-, C-, or M-planes planes of the seed and grown crystal (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5 to 15° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
Regarding claim 11, Pope teaches that the crystallographic axis [A], [M] or [C] forms with the normal to the cross- section of the monocrystalline sapphire seed an angle whose value is comprised between 25 and 35° (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side which is between 35 to 55° which touches the claimed range; alternatively, see claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 25 and 35° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pope and Goyal and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal miscut angle for the primary A-, C-, or M-planes planes of the seed and grown crystal (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 25 to 35° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
Regarding claim 13, Pope teaches that the crystallographic axis [A], [M] or [C] forms with the normal to the cross- section of the monocrystalline sapphire seed an angle whose value is comprised between 5 and 15° (see Figs. 5A-B and ¶¶[0028]-[0034] which teach that the long side (164) has a [C]-plane orientation which is offset by an angle (166) from the long side; see also claim 3 which teaches that the offset angle may be between 5 and 85° which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Even if it is assumed arguendo that the two opposing planar faces separated by a thickness of the plate as claimed are to be interpreted as having larger dimensions than the thickness (i.e., the plate shape is the C-plane while the thickness is the A-plane in Fig. 1 of the instant application), providing a seed crystal with a normal to the planar face of between 5 and 15° for the growth of a crystalline plate by the EFG method would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pope and Goyal. In at least ¶[0030] Pope teaches that selection of the primary crystallographic orientation (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5) through orientation of the seed crystal may achieve orientations that are offset from the surface of the part in order to, for example, avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part. Thus, Pope teaches that the primary crystallographic plane may also have a miscut angle. Then in at least Figs. 7 & 19-21, ¶¶[0015]-[0016], ¶¶[0081]-[0085], Examples 14-16 in ¶¶[0128]-[0133], and claim 9 Goyal teaches an analogous method of growing sapphire ribbons having planar facets comprised of the A-, C-, or M-plane with a miscut from 5° and up to 20° in order to facilitate the epitaxial deposition of, inter alia, superconducting or electromagnetically active layers thereupon. In ¶[0116] Goyal specifically teaches that the miscut does not have a detrimental effect on film growth and is beneficial from, for example, a flux-pinning perspective. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Pope and Goyal and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal miscut angle for the primary A-, C-, or M-planes planes of the seed and grown crystal (i.e., planes (142) or (162) in Figs. 4-5 of Pope) whose normal to the planar faces forms an angle of 5 to 15° in order to, for example, facilitate step-flow growth during epitaxial deposition, promote certain materials properties such as flux-pinning, and/or to avoid aligning low energy fracture planes with the highest stress directions of a part.
Regarding claim 15, Pope teaches that the method for manufacturing the sapphire single-crystal is selected from among EFG, HEM, Kyropoulos, Czochralski, Bridgman Vertical, Bridgman Horizontal and Micro Pulling Down processes (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the sapphire single crystal (120) is grown by the EFG method).
Regarding claim 18, Pope teaches that the method for manufacturing the sapphire single-crystal is selected from among EFG, HEM, Kyropoulos, Czochralski, Bridgman Vertical, Bridgman Horizontal and Micro Pulling Down processes (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the sapphire single crystal (120) is grown by the EFG method).
Regarding claim 19, Pope teaches that wherein the alumina and/or the sapphire that are molten are pure or doped (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0025]-[0026] which teach that the raw material (114) is comprised only of molten alumina which may be considered as substantially pure alumina).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of Goyal and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2007/0111489 to Crabtree, et al. (“Crabtree”).
Regarding claim 20, Pope and Goyal do not explicitly teach that sapphire scraps are used. However, in Figs. 1a-c and ¶¶[0028]-[0047] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Crabtree teaches an analogous method of producing a single crystal by pulling a seed from a melt (10) contained in a crucible (1). The melt (10) is produced by melting source material (5) which may be comprised of scrap material or pieces and chunks from other crystal growth processes. In this manner it is possible to reuse and/or purify the scrap material by segregation into the melt during crystal growth. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Crabtree and would be motivated to utilize sapphire scraps to form the raw material in the EFG crystal growth process of Pope in order to minimize waste and recycle alumina raw material from previous crystal growth processes.
Claim(s) 21 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope in view of Goyal and further in view of Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Regarding claim 21, Pope and Goyal do not teach that once the sapphire single-crystal is obtained, external part or functional components for watchmaking or jewelry are cut in the sapphire single-crystal. However, in at least ¶¶[0003]-[0004] and ¶[0011] of the Background section of the specification which is considered applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA), single crystals such as alumina are disclosed as being suitable for the manufacture of jewelry or for watch components such as glasses and technical components. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of AAPA and would be motivated to utilize the sapphire single crystals produced in the method of Pope for the production of jewelry or one or more watch components since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 24, Pope does not teach that once the sapphire single-crystal is obtained, external part or functional components for watchmaking or jewelry are cut in the sapphire single- crystal. However, in at least ¶¶[0003]-[0004] and ¶[0011] of the Background section of the specification which is considered applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA), single crystals such as alumina are disclosed as being suitable for the manufacture of jewelry or for watch components such as glasses and technical components. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the sapphire single crystals produced in the method of Pope for the production of jewelry or one or more watch components since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 25, Pope does not teach that the external part or functional components are watch bridges, plates, cases and dials or else wristlet links. However, in at least ¶¶[0003]-[0004] and ¶[0011] of the Background section of the specification which is considered applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA), single crystals such as alumina are disclosed as being suitable for the manufacture of jewelry or for watch components such as glasses and technical components. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the sapphire single crystals produced in the method of Pope for the production of jewelry or one or more watch components such as bridges, plates, cases, dials, and the like since this would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed January 20, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Applicants’ amendments to the claims necessitated the introduction of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0081456 to Amit Goyal to teach the newly added claim limitations.
Applicants reiterate their argument that, in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 6, Pope does not teach or suggest that the seed crystal has “a plate shape delimited by two planar faces which extend parallel to and at a distance from each other, and a side face delimiting a side of the plate shape in a thickness direction of the plate shape and corresponding to the distance between the two planar faces.” See applicants’ 1/20/2026 reply, pp. 11-15. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is pointed out that in providing the claims with their broadest reasonable interpretation the amendments to claims 1 and 6 still do not distinguish between the different planar surfaces of a plate shaped crystal as there is no reference to the relative size of each plane. Using Fig. 4A of Pope (reproduced below) as an example, the C-planes (146) on the top and bottom edges of the crystal (140) may be considered as one of two planar faces which extend parallel to and at a distance from each other. Then the side face may be either the A-plane (142) or the
PNG
media_image1.png
291
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
M-plane (148) which delimits a side of the plate shape in a thickness direction which extends between the top and bottom faces of the C-planes (146). Under this interpretation, the arrangement of the crystallographic planes of the seed and/or grown plate-shaped crystal with the offset angles (166) and (167) in Figs. 5A-B still reads upon claims 1 and 6 as amended. It is the Examiner’s position that in order to more clearly distinguish between planes (142), (146), and (148) in Fig. 4A one would need to reference their actual or relative dimensions. Moreover, even if it is assumed arguendo that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed plate shape is incorrect, the teachings of Goyal have been introduced to show that the use of a miscut angle of up to 20° for the primary plane of a ribbon- or plate-shaped crystal is known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714