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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites that “the graphical representation is formed on a crystal of the back.” Fig. 1 shows the graphical representation (18) formed on top of the crystal of the back (141) with a slight air gap in between the two, so this limitation is being interpreted to mean that the representation is above the crystal of the back, rather than the representation being physically in contact with the top of the crystal of the back.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltani (US 2009/0257323) in view of Christan (US 2022/0413443).
Regarding claim 1, Soltani discloses (Figs. 1, 4-5) a watch (title) comprising a case (title) including a middle (Fig. 2, 34) to which a crystal (left 86 in Fig. 5) and a transparent back (right 86 in Fig. 5) are fastened so as to form an internal volume (Fig. 5), said watch comprising a horological movement (84) housed within the internal volume of the case (Fig. 5), said horological movement including a carrying structure (30) through which an arbor (see image below) extends about an axis (vertical axis running through the arbor), said arbor being adapted to be rotated about the axis (hands 27 carried by the arbor are rotated through the movement rotating the arbor; see also [0041]) by said horological movement (84) and carrying, at one of two ends thereof that opens out beyond said carrying structure, opposite the crystal, a time value indicator (Fig. 1, 27 and [0031]), and at the other end opening out beyond said carrying structure, opposite the back, a disc (dial 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Soltani does not show, extending on the disc, a pattern facing a graphical representation, the pattern and the graphical representation being shaped to cooperate, when the arbor is rotating, to generate a sequential animation by moiré effect, formed by a sequence of at least two distinct images.
Christan teaches (Figs. 1-3) a disc (120) on which extends a pattern (122-123) facing a graphical representation (112-113 of 110), the pattern and the graphical representation being shaped to cooperate, when an arbor (220) is rotating ([0048]), to generate a sequential animation (abstract) by moiré effect. Moiré effects are created by superimposed patterns of transparent and opaque areas, as explained in [0003] of Martel (US 2022/0291632). Christan also teaches the sequential animation being formed by a sequence of at least two images. Paragraph [0018] teaches the pattern rotating 360 degrees; each degree may be considered a different image, so rotating the pattern creates a sequential animation formed from at least two images.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Soltani’s disc for the disc and graphical representation of Christan, so that a sequential animation is generated when the arbor is rotating (because the arbor is always rotating to display the time, a user actuating Christan’s crown 221 generates the animation when the arbor is rotating). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating an aesthetic appearance ([0005] of Christan).
Regarding claim 2, Soltani in view of Christan discloses the watch according to claim 1, wherein the graphical representation is formed on a crystal of the back. The substitution of Soltani’s dial for Christan’s disc in claim 1’s rejection forms the graphical representation on top of the crystal of the back.
Regarding claim 3, Soltani in view of Christan discloses the watch according to claim 1, wherein the sequential animation is formed by a sequence of four images. Paragraph [0018] of Christan discloses the pattern rotating 360 degrees; each degree may be considered a different image, so rotating the pattern creates a sequential animation formed by a sequence of four images.
Regarding claim 4, Soltani discloses (Fig. 1) the watch according to claim 1, wherein the time value indicator (27) is a seconds hand ([0031]), the arbor being rotated such that it makes one complete revolution in one minute. The arbor must complete one revolution per minute because it drives the seconds hand, which completes one revolution in one minute.
Regarding claim 6 Soltani discloses (Fig. 5) the watch according to claim, wherein the back is formed by a fastening ring (see image below), onto which a back crystal (86) is driven, the graphical representation extending over one face of the back crystal. The graphical representation is positioned between the movement and the back crystal in accordance with Christan’s teaching, such that the representation extends across the face of the back crystal.
PNG
media_image2.png
287
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Soltani in view of Christan discloses (Christan, Figs. 1-3) the graphical representation (112-113) being on a face (110) of the back (right 86 in Fig. 5 of Soltani) that is arranged opposite the horological movement and forming a set of opaque areas (113). Claim 8 is a “product by process” claim because of the claim language directed to the graphical representation being “produced by depositing a thin layer on a face of the back.” This step has been given little patentable weight as it has been held that 1) the determination of patentability in “product by process” claims is based on the product itself, even though such claims are limited and defined by the process, and 2) the product in such claims is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, even if the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present claim, depositing a thin layer to create the graphical representation does not result in an operable difference over other solutions that create the graphical representation. Any chosen method leads to the same result of creating a representation that generates a sequential animation by moiré effect.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltani in view of Christan, and further in view of Ozawa (US 2009/0073816).
Regarding claim 7, Soltani in view of Christan discloses the watch according to claim 6.
The combination of Soltani and Christan does not show the fastening ring screwed against the middle by a plurality of screws distributed around a periphery thereof, each being engaged inside a threaded hole extending into the middle.
Ozawa teaches (Figs. 1, 3) a fastening ring (51) screwed against a middle (2) by a plurality of screws (F5) distributed around a periphery thereof, each being engaged inside a thread hole (215A) extending into the middle (Fig. 1 and [0066]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced Soltani’s fastening ring with Ozawa’s fastening ring and screws. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a strong, secure connection that holds the watch together.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltani (US 2009/0257323) in view of Martel (US 20220291632).
Regarding claim 1, Soltani discloses (Figs. 1, 4-5) a watch (title) comprising a case (title) including a middle (Fig. 2, 34) to which a crystal (left 86 in Fig. 5) and a transparent back (right 86 in Fig. 5) are fastened so as to form an internal volume (Fig. 5), said watch comprising a horological movement (84) housed within the internal volume of the case (Fig. 5), said horological movement including a carrying structure (30) through which an arbor (see image below) extends about an axis (vertical axis running through the arbor), said arbor being adapted to be rotated about the axis (hands 27 carried by the arbor are rotated through the movement rotating the arbor; see also [0041]) by said horological movement (84) and carrying, at one of two ends thereof that opens out beyond said carrying structure, opposite the crystal, a time value indicator (Fig. 1, 27 and [0031]), and at the other end opening out beyond said carrying structure, opposite the back, a disc (dial 26).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Soltani does not show, extending on the disc, a pattern facing a graphical representation, the pattern and the graphical representation being shaped to cooperate, when the arbor is rotating, to generate a sequential animation by moiré effect, formed by a sequence of at least two distinct images.
Martel teaches (Figs. 1-4) a disc (22) on which extends a pattern (27-28 and Fig. 2) facing a graphic representation (26, 30), the pattern and graphical representation being shaped to cooperate, when an arbor (23) is rotating ([0044]), to generate a sequential animation by moire effect ([0049]), formed by a sequence of at least two distinct images. Paragraph [0070] discloses that the pattern makes a full revolution. Each incremental degree of the rotation may be considered a different image.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Soltani’s disc for Martel’s disc and graphical representation, so that a sequential animation is generated when the arbor is rotating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating an aesthetic appearance ([0046] of Martel).
Regarding claim 2, Soltani in view of Martel discloses the watch according to claim 1, wherein the graphical representation is formed on a crystal of the back. The substitution of Soltani’s dial for Martel’s disc and graphical representation in claim 1’s rejection forms the graphical representation on top of the crystal of the back.
Regarding claim 3, Soltani in view of Martel discloses the watch according to claim 1, wherein the sequential animation is formed by a sequence of four images. Paragraph [0070] of Martel discloses that the pattern makes a full revolution. Each incremental degree of the rotation may be considered a different image.
Regarding claim 4, Soltani discloses (Fig. 1) the watch according to claim 1, wherein the time value indicator (27) is a seconds hand ([0031]), the arbor being rotated such that it makes one complete revolution in one minute. The arbor must complete one revolution per minute because it drives the seconds hand, which completes one revolution in one minute. See also [0016] of Martel.
Regarding claim 6 Soltani discloses (Fig. 5) the watch according to claim, wherein the back is formed by a fastening ring (see image below), onto which a back crystal (86) is driven, the graphical representation extending over one face of the back crystal. The graphical representation is positioned between the movement (84) and the back crystal in accordance with Martel’s teaching, such that the representation extends across the face of the back crystal.
PNG
media_image2.png
287
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Soltani in view of Martel discloses (Martel, Fig. 1) the graphical representation (26, 30-113) being on a face (10) of the back (right 86 in Fig. 5 of Soltani) that is arranged opposite the horological movement and forming a set of opaque areas (30). Claim 8 is a “product by process” claim because of the claim language directed to the graphical representation being “produced by depositing a thin layer on a face of the back.” This step has been given little patentable weight as it has been held that 1) the determination of patentability in “product by process” claims is based on the product itself, even though such claims are limited and defined by the process, and 2) the product in such claims is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, even if the prior art product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present claim, depositing a thin layer to create the graphical representation does not result in an operable difference over other solutions that create the graphical representation. Any chosen method leads to the same result of creating a representation that generates a sequential animation by moiré effect.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltani in view of Martel, and further in view of Ozawa (US 2009/0073816).
Regarding claim 7, Soltani in view of Martel discloses the watch according to claim 6.
The combination of Soltani and Martel does not show the fastening ring screwed against the middle by a plurality of screws distributed around the periphery thereof, each being engaged inside a threaded hole extending into the middle.
Ozawa teaches (Figs. 1, 3) a fastening ring (51) screwed against a middle (2) by a plurality of screws (F5) distributed around a periphery thereof, each being engaged inside a thread hole (215A) extending into the middle (Fig. 1 and [0066]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced Soltani’s fastening ring with Ozawa’s fastening ring and screws. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a strong, secure connection that holds the watch together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-01-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A statement of common ownership of two assignees/applications must include that two assignees were commonly owned “not later than the effective filing date.” Applicant’s remarks filed 2026-01-22 do not contain this statement so the rejection is maintained. In addition, based on applicant’s amendments, new rejections using secondary reference Martel (US 20220291632) have also been included.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not show or suggest a pattern and graphical representation shaped such that between two successive images generated, a disc pivots by six degrees, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not show or suggest a pattern formed by a plurality of identical spirals extending from the center of a disc to a periphery thereof, and being evenly distributed around the center of the disc, said pattern being formed by depositing a thin layer on a face of the disc arranged facing a back, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not show or suggest a crystal and a disc on a back being separated from one another by a distance of less than 0.5 mm, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not show or suggest a disc having a 10 mm diameter, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Hersch (US 20070041611) discloses a sequential animation born from the moiré effect that displaces an element in a rectilinear direction ([0028]). The prior art does not show or suggest a sequential animation carried by an arbor generating a sequential animation consisting of displacing an element in a rectilinear direction when the arbor is rotated, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 10-6 PM PT.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/renee s luebke/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2833