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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 21, 2026 and March 10, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 6, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application number 18/191,111 has been reviewed, accepted and recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed March 6, 2026, with respect to claim rejections under 112 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendment to the claims are persuasive. The claim rejections under 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Nakamura fails to disclose a V-shape groove with a very sharp angle and disclose a rectangular shape instead, the examiner is unpersuaded. The angle of the recess defined by two sides in contact at end portions is not claimed, per se. A broad interpretation of the claim, in light of the specification, allows for more than a V-shape groove with a “very sharp angle,” e.g. instant application figures 9-11. Regarding applicant’s use of the term “rectangular shape” is confusing. While the examiner agrees that a groove with a rectangular cross section would fail to read on the claim Nakamura consistently uses the language of a decorative groove formed in a V-shape cross section. For example, Nakamura figure 5 shows cross section of a recess, i.e. decorative groove 7, that has two sides, i.e. 7A & 7B, that contact at their ends, i.e. the bottom (or top) of said recess/groove. A rectangular groove would have two sides and a bottom, which is not seen or disclosed in Nakamura. If applicant is (subjectively) arguing that the unclaimed “very sharp angle” should not be a 90° angle (rectangular?) – this is not claimed – nor is it clear which angle should not be the unclaimed “very sharp angle.” Further, in arguendo, using the values in paragraph [0008] and looking at the equal side portion (9), i.e. an isosceles triangle cross section, none of the angles are a 90° angle.
[AltContent: textbox (f)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (f)][AltContent: textbox (q)][AltContent: textbox (base)][AltContent: textbox (height)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect]
base = 0.05mm
height = 0.05mm
θ
=
t
a
n
-
1
h
e
i
g
h
t
1
2
b
a
s
e
=
t
a
n
-
1
0.05
0.025
=
63.43
°
ϕ
=
180
°
-
2
θ
=
180
°
-
2
(
63.43
°
)
=
53.1
4
°
base = 0.012mm
height = 0.05mm
θ
=
t
a
n
-
1
h
e
i
g
h
t
1
2
b
a
s
e
=
t
a
n
-
1
0.05
0.006
=
83.16
°
ϕ
=
180
°
-
2
θ
=
180
°
-
2
(
83.16
°
)
=
13.6
8
°
Figure A. Illustrating angular calculations showing Nakamura’s equal side portion (9), i.e. portion having an isosceles triangle cross section, does not have any feature that could be interpreted as “rectangular.”
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Nakamura fails to disclose “a ratio of a length of the second side with respect to the thickness direction of the base material and a length of the second side with respect to a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction is greater than 1 :6”, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner apologizes for inappropriately using the full base width for “a length of the second side with respect to a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction” (i.e. the second term in the ratio) in all calculations. More correctly, in the equal side portion (9) half of the base should have been used as the second term in the ratio. Thus in the equal side portion (9) and using the values disclosed in paragraph [0008] yields a ratio range of 0.05:0.006 to 0.05:0.025, which when the ratio is simplified by multiplying both terms by 20, to set the first term to 1, the ratio is 1:0.12 to 1:0.5. If the non-equal side portion (8) is included the second term would be the whole base value, i.e. the pitch disclosed in paragraph [0008], yielding a simplified ratio of 1:0.24 to 1:1. Thus, the largest ratio range for all cases disclosed by Nakamura is 1:0.12 to 1:1. The claimed range is greater than 1:6. To compare in decimal form Nakamura’s disclosed values have a range of 8.3 to 1.0 and the claimed range is greater than 0.17. Therefore, since in all cases Nakamura’s ratio range is within the claimed range Nakamura anticipates the claimed ratio range.
[AltContent: textbox (Extreme case of 7A=7B where ½(base) is the second term of ratio (H))][AltContent: textbox (Extreme case of 7A≠7B where base is the second term of ratio (H))]
PNG
media_image1.png
452
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Portion of Nakamura figure 5 showing how extreme cases disclosed effect the second term (H) of the claimed ratio. (It is noted the first term, height/thickness (L), is constant for all cases.)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. US Patent Application Publication 2002/0068148, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Nakamura discloses a watch component (title e.g. figures 3-5 dial plate 2) comprising: a base material (e.g. 2) including a first region (e.g. region with decorative grooves 7) having a surface at which a plurality of recessed portions (e.g. 7) are formed and a second region (e.g. flat peripheral region seen in figure 5) having a smooth surface (see figure 5); and a multilayer film (e.g. layers 11, 12 & 13) configured to cover each of the first region and the second region (see figure 5), wherein when viewed in a cross-sectional view taken along a thickness direction of the base material, the plurality of recessed portions are defined by a first side (e.g. edge of inner slanted side 7A) and a second side (e.g. edge of outer slanted side 7B), the second side being tilted with respect to the first side and being in contact with the first side at an end portion (inter alia abstract “the V-shape of the decorative groove (7)” see figure 5), and in the cross-sectional view, a ratio of a length of the second side with respect to the thickness direction of the base material and a length of the second side with respect to a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction is greater than 1:6 (paragraph [0008] “groove of approximately 0.012 to 0.05 mm pitch and approximately 0.05 mm depth” and results in a ratio range of 1:0.12 to 1:1, see response section above) such that a hue angle of light interfered with the multilayered film in the first region is greater than a hue angle of light interfered with the multilayered film in the second region (inherent effect of the claimed structure as evidenced by instant application page 16 lines 5-18, discussing the hue angle relationship necessarily flows from the smooth/recessed structure).
Regarding claim 4 Nakamura discloses the watch component according to claim 1, as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses wherein the multilayer film (e.g. 11, 12 & 13) includes a color absorption film (e.g. decorative plating layer 11) formed using metal (inter alia paragraph [0052] “decorative plate is made of metal” e.g. paragraph [0084] “Gold plating layer is used as the decorative plating layer 11”).
Regarding claim 5 Nakamura discloses the watch component according to claim 1, as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses wherein in the cross-sectional view, the first side is tilted to be line-symmetric with the second side with respect to a symmetry axis extending in the thickness direction of the base material (inter alia paragraph [0081] “slant angle of the slanted sides 7A and 7B of the decorative groove 7 gradually change to become equal”).
Regarding claim 6 Nakamura discloses the watch component according to claim 1, as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses wherein the recessed portion (e.g. 7) is defined by the first side (e.g. edge of 7A), a first surface (e.g. 7A), and a second surface (e.g. 7B), the first surface (e.g. 7A) being defined by a third side (e.g. bottom of V-groove) orthogonal to the first side (see figure 5) and the second side (e.g. edge of 7B), the second surface (e.g. 7B) being defined by the second side (e.g. edge of 7B) and the third side (e.g. bottom of V-groove), and an angle of the second surface with respect to the first surface is constant (implicit since the groove is cut by a carving machine using a diamond tool bit 22A with a fixed isosceles-triangle front face 22B and a right-triangle side face 22C, see figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 7 Nakamura discloses the watch component according to claim 1, as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses wherein the watch component (e.g. 2) is configured as a dial (see figure 3), the first region (e.g. area with 7) is configured as an hour mark (e.g. time displays 6), and the second region (e.g. flat area at periphery) is configured as a dial body part (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 8 Nakamura further discloses a watch (e.g. timepiece 1) comprising the watch component (e.g. 2) according to claim 1 (as set forth above).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. US Patent Application Publication 2002/0068148, of record, in view of Furusato US Patent Application Publication 2018/0217559, of record.
Regarding claim 3 Nakamura discloses the watch component according to claim 1, as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses wherein the multilayer film (e.g. 11, 12 & 13) includes a color adjustment film (e.g. colored coating layer 12) including a material (paragraph [0084] “12 including a pigment”).
Nakamura is silent regarding the composition of the color adjustment film. Specifically, Nakamura does not disclose the color adjustment film contains at least one of Ta205, SiO2, TiO2, A1203, ZrO2, Nb205, Hf02, Na5Al3F14, Na3AlF6, AlF3, MgF2, CaF2, BaF2, YF3, LaF3, CeF3, and NdF3.
Furusato teaches a similar watch component (title & abstract “a dial” e.g. figure 1 timepiece component 10) including a base (e.g. substrate 2) with a multilayer film (e.g. toning film 5) includes a color adjustment film (paragraph [0007] “a toning film which is constituted by a multilayer film of a metal oxide, and has a function of adjusting a color tone”); and further discloses the color adjustment film contains at least one of Ta205, SiO2, TiO2, A1203, ZrO2, Nb205, Hf02, Na5Al3F14, Na3AlF6, AlF3, MgF2, CaF2, BaF2, YF3, LaF3, CeF3, and NdF3 (inter alia abstract “toning film preferably includes a layer constituted by a material containing at least one member selected from the group consisting of Ta205, SiO2, TiO2, A1203, ZrO2, Nb205, and Hf02”) for the purpose of having an excellent appearance even without using a noble metal as a main material (paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the watch component as disclosed by Nakamura to have the color adjustment film contains at least one of Ta205, SiO2, TiO2, A1203, ZrO2, Nb205, Hf02, Na5Al3F14, Na3AlF6, AlF3, MgF2, CaF2, BaF2, YF3, LaF3, CeF3, and NdF3 as taught by Furusato for the purpose of having an excellent appearance even without using a noble metal as a main material.
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 George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 16, 2026