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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 6-9-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims filed 6-9-26 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 7-8 are new.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “at least one face provided a polymer material coating”. It’s not clear if it’s intended to recite “at least one face provided with a polymer material coating”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a hard material body having a Vickers hardness greater than 1000 HV and at least one face provided a polymer material coating”. It’s not clear if the polymer material coating is provided to both the body and the face or the face only.
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savy et al. (US 6,213,635) in view of Bazin et al. (English abstract of CH713262).
Regarding claim 1, Savy et al. discloses an ornamental part 1 for a timepiece (claim 1, abstract, fig. 1-6), comprising:
A hard material body having a Vickers hardness greater than 1000 HV (col. 5, line 1-3, claim 10) and at least one face provided with a polymer material coating 9 (abstract, fig. 1-6, claims 1-2, 7).
Savy et al. teaches the polymer material is an elastomeric material but does not teach wherein the polymer material is elected from the following list: POM, PA, PPS, ABS, PC. However, Bazin et al. teaches a composite watch component useful for manufacturing timepiece. The matrix of the composite watch component includes thermosetting resins of the family of polyepoxides, of the family of acrylics, of the family of polyurethanes or of the family of thermoplastics including polyetherketones or polyamides, polyurethanes, polyolefins or the family of elastomers including polysiloxanes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select PA as the polymer material in Savy et al. since Bazin et al. teaches that PA is useful as a material for a watch component.
Regarding claim 2, Savy et al. discloses wherein the polymer material coating has a functionalized shape (fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Savy et al. discloses wherein the body defines an internal space, the face 18 bordering said space (fig. 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Savy et al. discloses a watch case (abstract, claim 13) comprising:
The ornamental part 1 according to claim 1, a crystal 18 (abstract, claim 6), and a bezel 19 (col. 1, lien 15-63) for holding the crystal on the part, the bezel being assembled to the part by the polymer material coating (fig. 3, 5, col. 4, line 14-24).
Regarding claim 6, Savy et al. discloses wherein the hard material body is ceramic, silicon nitride, zirconium oxide, sapphire, or alumina (col. 5, line 1-3 and claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, Savy et al. discloses wherein the ornamental part is a back 7 of the timepiece (see fig. 3, 5, claim 1, 4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savy et al. in view of Bazin et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nagasawa et al. (US 10,928,781).
Regarding claim 7, Savy et al. does not teach wherein the hard material body is aluminum oxide. However, Nagasawa et al. teaches a case for a timepiece is formed of a high hardens material, e.g., ceramics such as aluminum oxide (col. 3k line 35-46, col. 9, line 65-col. 10, line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum oxide as the hard material body since Nagasawa et al. teaches that aluminum oxide is a ceramic with a high hardness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights