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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C in the reply filed on 2/7/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction Requirement of 12/16/2024 omits a recognition that at least independent claim 20 reads on all three of the species. Claim 20 appears to be generic.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/7/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “triangular shaped star are approximately three degrees lower.” It is unclear what approximately three degrees means. It could mean 2-4 degrees or 0-10 degrees. Examiner is interpreting “approximately three degrees” to be a sufficiently broad limitation.
Claim 9 recites “each of the plurality of bottom facets in angled from each other approximately 15 degrees from an adjacent facet in a 360-degree radius of its modified round shape.” It is unclear how the 15 degrees is measured and applicant has not provided a drawing with the angle measurement shown. Further the cross-section of the gemstone of the invention taken somewhere on the pavilion would result in a 24-sided polygon. For all sides to be evenly angled from the adjacent side, the angle between them would have to be 165° taken from the inside or 195° from the outside.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-22, 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samuels US 20030192346.
Regarding claim 20, Samuels discloses a gemstone comprising:
a crown and a bottom separated by a girdle, the crown including a table which is surrounded by a plurality of triangular-shaped stars (Star), a plurality of primary bezel facets (Mid Bezel) and a plurality of secondary bezel facets (Table Bezel), wherein each one of the plurality of secondary bezel facets is positioned between a pair of primary bezel facets of the plurality of primary bezel facets, wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets advance from the table towards the girdle a distance greater than the plurality of secondary bezel facets, and the plurality of primary bezel facets (Mid Bezel 26.18°) are cut at a higher angle than the plurality of secondary bezel facets (Table Bezel 20°) with respect to a girdle plane;
wherein the plurality of triangular-shaped stars extend downward a predetermined distance from the table towards the girdle, each one of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars being positioned between a primary bezel facet and an adjacent secondary bezel facet of the plurality of primary and secondary bezel facets; and
a plurality of top breaks (Top Half) which advance a predetermined distance from the girdle towards the table, each of the plurality of top breaks being positioned between a one of the plurality of primary bezel facets and an adjacent one of the plurality of secondary bezel facets (Samuels Fig 17)
Regarding claim 21, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of top breaks (Samuels, Top Half, 54.187°) are triangular shaped and cut at a steeper angle than the plurality of primary bezel facets (Samuels, Mid Bezel, 26.18°), the plurality of secondary bezel facets and the plurality of triangular-shaped stars on the crown, such that upon the crown being illuminated the plurality of top breaks increase a direct light path through the bottom and induce a scalloping effect around a perimeter of the girdle.
Regarding claim 22, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets (Samuels, Mid Bezel, 26.18°) are at different angles than the secondary bezel facets (Samuels, Table Bezel, 20°) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 26, Samuels discloses wherein the bottom includes a plurality of primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break) and a plurality of secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Girdle Pavilion), the plurality of primary pavilion facets extending from the girdle to a culet, the plurality of secondary pavilion facets advancing from the girdle and towards the culet a distance less than the plurality of primary pavilion facets; each one of the plurality of secondary pavilion facets being interleaved between an adjacent one pair of the plurality of primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 27, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets (Samuels, mid bezel, 26.18°) are at different angles than the secondary bezel facets (Samuels, table bezel, 20°).
Regarding claim 28, Samuels discloses wherein each of the plurality of secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Girdle Pavilion) extends deeper into the girdle than each of the plurality of primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 29, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break 45.536°) are at different angles than the secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Girdle Pavilion 47.8°) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 30, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets (Samuels, Mid Bezel 26.18°) on the crown and the plurality of secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom, Girdle Pavilion 47.8°) on the bottom are arranged to advance further into the girdle at steeper angles than the plurality of secondary bezel facets (Samuels, Table Bezel 20°) and the plurality of primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break 45.536°) such that the girdle is wavy, thereby retaining greater spread for the gemstone at alternating points (Samuels Fig 17).
Regarding claim 31, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets are aligned over the plurality of primary pavilion facets and the plurality of secondary bezel facets are aligned over the plurality of secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 32, Samuels discloses further comprising a plurality of pairs of lower girdle facets (Bottom Half) which extend from the girdle towards the culet a predetermined distance, and each individual one of the plurality of pairs of lower girdle facets being positioned between a primary pavilion facet (Bottom Small Break) and a secondary pavilion facet (Girdle Pavilion) of the plurality of primary and secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 33, Samuels discloses wherein the plurality of pairs of top breaks are aligned over the plurality of pairs of lower girdle facets (Samuels, Bottom Half) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels US 20030192346 in view of Weitman US D565994.
Regarding claim 23, Samuels discloses the claimed invention except wherein a total quantity of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars is equal to a combined quantity of the plurality of primary bezel facets and the plurality of secondary bezel facets; and wherein a total quantity of the plurality of top breaks is equal to a total quantity of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars.
Weitman discloses wherein a total quantity of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars is equal to a combined quantity of the plurality of primary bezel facets and the plurality of secondary bezel facets; and wherein a total quantity of the plurality of top breaks is equal to a total quantity of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars (Weitman Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gemstone of Samuels to have the total quantity of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars is equal to a combined quantity of the plurality of primary bezel facets and the plurality of secondary bezel facets; and wherein a total quantity of the plurality of top breaks is equal to a total quantity of the plurality of triangular-shaped stars as taught by Weitman to create a more uniform and aesthetic gemstone cut.
Regarding claim 25, Samuels discloses the claimed invention except wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets equals six primary bezel facets, and the plurality of secondary bezel facets equals six secondary bezel facets.
Weitman discloses wherein the plurality of primary bezel facets equals six primary bezel facets, and the plurality of secondary bezel facets equals six secondary bezel facets (Weitman, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gemstone of Samuels to have six primary and six secondary bezel facets as taught by Weitman for aesthetic purposes.
The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the number of primary and secondary bezel facets to shape of the gemstone crown. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gemstone crown of Samuels to have six primary and six secondary bezel facets as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Claims 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitman US D565994 in view of Samuels US 20030192346.
Regarding claim 7, Weitman discloses a gemstone comprising:
a crown and a bottom separated by a girdle, the crown including a table surrounded by six primary bezel facets and six secondary bezel facets, each one of the six secondary bezel facets alternating between an adjacent two of the six primary bezel facets, wherein the six primary bezel facets are arranged to advance from the table to the girdle a distance greater than the six secondary bezel facets,;
six pairs of triangular-shaped stars, wherein the six pairs of triangular-shaped stars extend downward from the table towards the girdle a predetermined distance between the table and the girdle, and each individual one of the six pairs of triangular-shaped stars being positioned between a primary bezel facet and a secondary bezel facet of the six primary and secondary bezel facets;
six pairs of top breaks which extend a predetermined distance from the girdle towards the table, and each individual one of the six pairs of top breaks being positioned between a one of the six primary bezel facets and an adjacent one of the six secondary bezel facets; and
wherein the bottom includes a plurality of bottom facets extending from the girdle to a culet (Weitman Fig 1-3).
Weitman does not disclose the six primary bezel facets being cut higher than the six secondary bezel facets with respect to a girdle plane
Samuels discloses the primary bezel facets (mid bezel facet) being cut higher (26.18°) than the secondary bezel facets (table bezel, 20°) with respect to the girdle plane (Fig 17).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bezel facets of Weitman to have steeper primary bezel facets than secondary bezel facets as taught by Samuels to change the path of light through the stone and create a more aesthetic stone.
PNG
media_image1.png
828
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six pairs of top breaks (Samuels, Top Half 54.087°) are cut at a steeper angle than the six primary bezel facets (Samuels, mid bezel, 26.18°), the six secondary bezel facets and the six pairs of triangular-shaped stars on the crown, such that upon the crown being illuminated the six pairs of top breaks increase a direct light path through the bottom and induce a scalloping effect around a perimeter of the girdle. (Weitman, Fig 1 and Samuels, Fig 17)
Regarding claim 12, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six secondary bezel facets (Samuels, table bezel, 20°) are at different angles than the six primary bezel facets (Samuels, mid bezel, 26.18°) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 13, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the bottom comprises a plurality of bottom facets including six primary pavilion facets extending from the girdle to the culet;
the bottom further including six secondary pavilion facets interleaved adjacent to the six primary pavilion facets (Weitman, Fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
790
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six primary bezel facets (Samuels, mid bezel, 26.18°) of the crown and the six secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break 45.536°) of the bottom are arranged to advance further into the girdle at steeper angles than the six secondary bezel facets(Samuels, table bezel, 20°) and the six primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Culet Pavilion 39°), thereby retaining greater spread for the gemstone at alternating points (Weitman Fig 1 and Samuels Fig 17).
Regarding claim 14, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six primary pavilion facets extend a greater distance from the girdle towards the culet than the six secondary pavilion facets (Weitman, Fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break) extend deeper into the girdle than the six primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Culet Pavilion) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 16, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six secondary pavilion facets (Samuels, Bottom Small Break 45.536°) are at different angles than the six primary pavilion facets (Samuels, Culet Pavilion 39°) (Samuels, Fig 17).
Regarding claim 17, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six primary bezel facets are aligned over the six primary pavilion facets and the six secondary bezel facets are aligned over the six secondary pavilion facets (Weitman, Fig 3).
Regarding claim 18, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses further comprising six pairs of lower girdle facets extending from the girdle towards the culet a predetermined distance, and each individual one of the six pairs of lower girdle facets being positioned between a primary pavilion facet and a secondary pavilion facet of the six primary and secondary pavilion facets (Weitman, Fig 2).
Regarding claim 19, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses wherein the six pairs of top breaks are aligned over the six pairs of lower girdle facets (Weitman, Fig 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitman US D565994 in view of Samuels US 20030192346 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Rydlewicz US 20070113586.
Regarding claim 8, Weitman in view of Samuels discloses the claimed invention except wherein the six pairs of triangular-shaped stars are approximately three degrees lower than an adjacent one of the six primary bezel facets.
Rydlewicz discloses triangular-shaped stars (crown star 3) are approximately three degrees lower than an adjacent one of the primary bezel facets (main crown facet) (Para 11)
Examiner is interpreting “approximately three degrees” to be a sufficiently broad limitation to be read on by Rydlewicz.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angles between the star facets and primary bezel facets of Weitman in view of Samuels to be three degrees flatter as taught by Rydlewizs to change the path of light through the gemstone to create a more aesthetic stone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holloway et al. discloses a gemstone cut with pairs of bezel facets and the star facets being approximately three degrees flatter in relation to the girdle plane. Weitman US D638740 dislcoses a gemstone cut with primary and secondary bezel facets arranged around a table with star and top break facets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677