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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 05/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 17-25 remain pending. Claims 10-16 have been withdrawn. New Claims 21-25 are added and correspond to withdrawn Claims 14, 11, 12, 13 and 15 respectively and depend on Claim 1 of the process elected Group I.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect to claim(s) in the Non-Final rejection dated 11/18/2025 filed 05/15/2026 are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks, see pages 7-, filed 05/15/2026, with respect to Amended Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner will address applicable Arguments below.
Note: While not noted in the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks, the Applicant also amended Claim 8, by removing the phrases “having a red color” and “dark in color”.
Regarding Amended Claim 1 The Applicant argues that,
Art Rejection
contrary to the suggestion in the Office Action, obtaining reproducible colors is not predictable as noted in the present application on page 2 lines 3-7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have predicted from Yamauchi and/or Huger that the process taught by Yamauchi could be modified to produce a one-piece part with a first portion in red and a second portion in black.
The selection of the colors and the sintering and/or heat treatment conditions to obtain a one-piece part, as defined in the present claim 1, would not have been predictable from Yamauchi and/or Huguet, since both Yamauchi and Huguet focus on different pigments and different colors, let alone with a reasonable expectation of success that the selected colors would be achievable.
Dependent claims
the cited references fail to teach or suggest the combined features of each of these respective
claims.
In particular, the specific color definitions of claim 14 would not have been predictable from the
bright red colors and/or blue/black colors on which the teachings of the cited references focus
respectively. Therefore, each of the respective dependent claims, and in particular, claim 14, is
not obvious over the cited references taken alone or in any combination.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
Art Rejection
First, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, that a PHOSITA would not have predicted from the cited references that Yamauchi could be modified to produce a one-piece part with a first portion in red and a
second portion in black, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner recognizes that
obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to
produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so
found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re
Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Yamauchi discloses a one-piece part that has a first portion in red and a
second portion in black from two separate powders (red and black, [0215]-[0225]), indicating
that a dual color article may be desired (red and black) and also discloses a single powder to
make a one-piece part that is red [0183]. Further, Huguet discloses a pigment component of the
green body [0042] where a pigment could be red ([0052] and a means to impregnate a the
green body with a solution ([0069], [0070]) of a further pigment component [0074] to achieve a
black color [0077]. Huguet discloses a process of dual color, with the second color via
impregnation, where Yamauchi has disclosed single color (red) sintered article but also disclosed
a means or desire to produce a two-color sintered article. Hence, Applicants argument is moot.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamauchi and Huguet both cite the use of red color for the main sintered ceramic article as well as cite the color black in use for their respective processes as a second color. As well, Yamauchi discloses sintering temperature for HIP of temperature of 1400°C for 1 hr, while Huguet cites a conventional sintering process of 1300°C - 1550°C for 1.5-3.0 depending “on the case” (i.e. materials used)[0089] as well as notes other sintering means can be used, for example Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP). There is a clear nexus for color, sintering method and sintering temperatures between Yamauchi and Huguet. Further, argument that the proposed modification would not have led to the expectation of success, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schultze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). See also MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Hence, Applicants argument is moot. The Rejection for Claim 1 is maintained.
Dependent claims
See Examiner reply for Art Rejection a) and b). Hence, the argument is moot. As the Rejection
for Claim 1 is maintained, the Rejections for all dependent claims are maintained.
Claim 14 was withdrawn as part of the Restriction Requirement yet Applicant’s Arguments and Remarks indicate new Claim 21 corresponds to withdrawn Claim 14. The Examiner will address the argument regarding Claim 14 as an argument for new Claim 21.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The measurement mode of SCI and SCE where,
SCI = Specular Component Included, typically used for color formulation in industry without
being affected by the surface condition of a sample; called “true color”.
SCE – Specular Component Excluded, typically used for quality control of color as sample
surface effects are not included in the measurement and measures the color seen by the
human eye.
Further, One skilled in the art would know that industry standard measurement equipment for
obtaining L*, a* and b* values when measuring color allows for SCI and SCE mode L* a* b*
values to be collected simultaneously. Using SCE measurements, one could optimize the
Yamauchi process the red color (first color) of Yamauchi targeting the SCI measurements of
Yamauchi to provide consistent color tone of the first color throughout the sintered body,
Hence the argument is moot.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained. In addition,
Regarding Claim 1 –
the examiner understands that sintering and thermally treating are two separate actions or could be combined into one heat treating process.
Regarding Claim 24 – the weight proportion of cerium oxide in a range of from 3% to 5% is inclusive.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”. . Below is/are a list of claims/limitations that are structural limitations or mere outcomes of the method, (not a method):
Regarding an aspect of Claim 25 – the final component is a ceramic timepiece component which is a
“watch bezel, a dial, an index, a winding crown, a push-piece, another watch exterior component, or
another portion of a timepiece movement” is a mere claiming of a use of a particular structure and
would not be entitled to weight in the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-9, 17-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20180222799A1 by Yamauchi et. al. (herein “Yamauchi”) and in view of USPGPUB
20150307405A1 by Huguet et. al. (herein “Huguet”).
Regarding Claim 1 , Yamauchi teaches:
A process for manufacturing
a ceramic timepiece component; [0298], “The zirconia sintered bodies according to the present
invention are sintered bodies that have high densities…and are applicable to members such as
…for example, various members such as timepiece components…”
comprising,
manufacturing an intermediate component having a form of a green body based on ceria-
zirconia; [0082],[0091], “ The sintered body of the present invention can be manufactured by a
method for manufacturing a zirconia sintered body, the method including, a green body
(hereinafter, also referred to as a “red green body”) containing yttria…an oxide of cerium…an
oxide of aluminum… and the balance being zirconia”, “the mixed powder can be molded into a
desired shape. The method may be at least one selected from the group consisting of die
pressing, cold isostatic pressing, slip casting, and injection molding.”
Yamauchi fails to teach,
totally or partially debinding the intermediate component to obtain a debound intermediate
component;
While Yamauchi does not explicitly teach a binder is used in the mixed powder, it would be understood
by one skilled in the art that green ceramic forming processes contain binders to promote shaping for
typical ceramic forming processes, such as die pressing, cold isostatic pressing, slip casting, and injection
molding ([0091]). In a similar endeavor of creating sintered ceramics Huguet teaches (while not given
weight, for a bezel of a watch component – [0079]) the use of zirconia, yttria and ceria [0016] combined
with binders [0056] for preparing a green body [0055]. “For the formation of the green body any
conventional method described in the state of the art may be chosen. Such conventional methods for
preparing the green body include injection molding, tape casting, dry pressing, slip casting and extrusion
[0057].” As similar ceramic forming processes are used in Huguet as are used in Yamauchi, it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention that a binder of Huguet was used in the powder mixture of Yamauchi for forming a
green body, as one would have been motivated to do so for make the formation of the green body
easier, as noted by Huguet ([0057] lines 1-2).
Huguet further teaches a debinding heat treatment step to remove the binders from the green body
([0060] line 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the debinding process of Huguet to the method of
Yamauchi, to create a debound intermediate component, as one would be motivated to do so to
optimize the porous volume in the green body and allow for subsequent handling, as noted by Huguet
([0060] lines 3-5).
Yamauchi fails to teach,
locally impregnating the debound intermediate component with at least one solution
comprising at least one metal salt, on one portion only of a surface of the debound
intermediate component to obtain an impregnated debound intermediate component.
Huguet further teaches, “The impregnating solution is a solution containing a further pigment
component”, “The further pigment component in the impregnating solution may be any pigment
component. The further pigment component shall regularly be the salt of a polyvalent metal” ( [0072],
[0074]). Huguet cites a combination of salts in an aqueous solution can be used ([0076 lines
4-5). Further, “while possible to impregnate the complete surface of the green body, only a partial
surface of the green body can be treated and the local color can be realized by a physical mask” ([0079],
[0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to use a metal salt solution and masking technique of Huguet in the
method of Yamauchi, as one would be motivated to do so to have the ability to modify or change the
color of the sintered ceramic product in the impregnated area and produce a bi-colored sintered
ceramic body, as noted by Huguet ([0076] lines 4-9, [0079] lines 3-4 ).
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
sintering and thermally treating by performing at least one heat treatment under a reducing
atmosphere; [0102],[106],[114] “ An example of the two-step sintering process, which is a
preferred sintering step, is a sintering step including a primary sintering step… and a secondary
sintering step of subjecting the primary sintered body to hot isostatic pressing (hereinafter, also
referred to as “HIP”) (hereinafter, also referred to as a “pressure sintering method”)”,
“The HIP is conducted in a reducing atmosphere”.
While Yamauchi teaches a green body that is sintered in reducing atmosphere via the hot isostatic
pressing (HIP) using a temperature of 1400°C for 1 hr. ([0107]), Yamauchi fails to teach the above
sintering process for,
the impregnated debound intermediate component
Huguet teaches the impregnated debound intermediate component ([0060],[0072], [0074], [0076]) with
conventional sintering processes (1500°C for 2hrs), but also teaches other process conditions and other
non-conventional sintering means can be used. Further, among the non-conventional processes being
Spark Plasma Sintering, Hot Isostatic Pressing or Microwave Assisted Sintering ([0090]). One skilled in
the art would know that HIP processing uses inert gas, for example argon, as a means of ensuring the
gas does not react with material in the HIP vessel. As other process conditions are possible as cited by
Huguet, this would not preclude using a reducing gas for sintering the impregnated debound
intermediate component if so desired. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the a
the impregnated debound intermediate component of Huguet in the reduced atmosphere thermal
treatment of Yamauchi, as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within
his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation
but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007).
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
so as to obtain a final component which is a monobloc one-piece part; [0183] Example 9,[0167],
[0170], [0172] Example 1, “a zirconia sinter body was obtained in the same manner as in
Example 1,”, “This powder was used as raw material powder”, “The raw material powder was
molded by die pressing…”, “ the subjected greed body was subjected to primary sintering”, ,
“the primary sintered body …was subjected to HIP”; here, a single powder composition was
used to form the one-piece part.
While Yamauchi discloses Example 9 being red in color, Yamauchi does not disclose,
and two-tone or multicolored;
comprising,
at least a first portion in a first color and at least a second portion in a second color different
from the first color,
wherein ,
the first color is a red color and the second color is a black color.
Huguet further teaches that the coloured technical ceramic bodies can have any combination of colors
where the first color can be red and the second color can be black [0112].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to deploy an impregnation of a black color of method of Huguet to the red
colored article of Yamauchi, as one would be motived to do so for the purposes of choosing a color
related to intended use of the article as well as for aesthetic reasons, as noted by Huguet ([0112] lines 6-
9).
Regarding Claim 2 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein, the sintering and thermally treating the impregnated debound intermediate
component comprises sintering the impregnated debound intermediate component
under an oxidizing atmosphere then performing the heat treatment under the reducing
atmosphere; [0102],[106],[114] “ An example of the two-step sintering process, which is a
preferred sintering step, is a sintering step including a primary sintering step of subjecting a red
green body to pressureless sintering to obtain a primary sintered body, and a secondary
sintering step of subjecting the primary sintered body to hot isostatic pressing (hereinafter, also
referred to as “HIP”) (hereinafter, also referred to as a “pressure sintering method”)”,
“Conditions for the primary sintering step of obtaining a primary sintered body to be provided
to the HIP may be conditions described below…Sintering atmosphere: at least one selected from
the group consisting of an oxidizing atmosphere”, “The HIP is conducted in a reducing
atmosphere”.
Regarding Claim 3 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the manufacturing the intermediate component having the form of the
green body made of ceria-zirconia,
uses a ceramic powder based on yttria-stabilized zirconia; [0034], [0090],[0183, Sample 9], “A
zirconia sintered body of the present invention…contains yttria. Yttrium functions as a stabilizer
without coloring zirconia”, “The method for mixing the raw material powders may be any
method as long as yttria, zirconia, cerium oxide, and an oxide of aluminum are sufficiently
mixed to obtain a mixed powder”, “yttria containing zirconia powder”.
Regarding Claim 4 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 3.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the ceramic powder based on yttria stabilized zirconia,
comprises alumina in a weight proportion in a range of from 0.1% to 1%.; [0083],[0183] “A more
preferred red green body has a composition that contains …an oxide of aluminum in an amount
of 0.1% by weight or more and 1% by weight or less, and the balance being zirconia.
Example 9 has alumina weight proportion of 0.9% Note: the green body is also referenced as
“red green body” [0082].
Regarding Claim 5 – Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the sintering and thermally treating the impregnated debound intermediate
component comprises,
the sintering the impregnated debound intermediate component under the oxidizing
atmosphere, subjects the impregnated debound intermediate component to a temperature in a
range of from 1400°C to 1650°C for a thermal hold of at least thirty minutes; [0121], [0123],
[0124], [0107], [0183], “Conditions for the primary sintering step of obtaining a primary
sintered body to be provided to the reduction pressureless sintering may be conditions
described below”, “Primary sintering temperature… 1,450° C. or higher and 1,600° C. or lower”,
“Sintering atmosphere: an oxidizing atmosphere…”. Example 9, which has the same primary
sintering as Example 1, has a “sintering temperature of 1,500° C. for two hours”.
and/or,
the heat treatment under the reducing atmosphere subjects the impregnated debound
intermediate component to a temperature in a range of from 1200°C to 1550°C, in a reducing
atmosphere, with a thermal hold of at least 30 minutes; [0111], [0112], [0107], “In the
secondary sintering step in the pressure sintering method, HIP…The temperature of the HIP is
preferably 1,300° C. or higher and lower than 1,475° C.” Example 9, which has the same HIP
sintering as Example 1, “The primary sintered body….was subjected to HIP at 1,400° C…for a
holding time of one hour”.
Regarding Claim 6 – Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the sintering and thermally treating the impregnated debound intermediate
component comprises,
a single operation of reductive sintering subjecting the impregnated debound intermediate
component to a temperature in a range of from 1400°C to 1650°C, in a reducing atmosphere,
; [0082], [0092], [0093], “The sintered body of the
present invention can be manufactured by a method for manufacturing a zirconia sintered body,
the method including a sintering step of sintering, in a reducing atmosphere, a green body”, “In
the sintering step, the red green body is sintered in a reducing atmosphere…Such sintering is
conducted, for example, in a reducing atmosphere at 1.400° C. or higher and 1,600° C. or lower”.
Yamauchi does not teach,
for a thermal hold of at least one hour
Typically, a sintering operation of ceramics contains a thermal hold at the sintering temperature. On the whole, Yamauchi does cite hold time at sintering temperature for Examples 1-13 ([0167]-[0192]) all between 1-2hrs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to institute a hold time relative to the instant claim based on the method of Yamauchi, to have hold time conditions and temperature conditions that generate density of the sintered body, as noted by Yamauchi ([0093]. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7 – Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches yttria zirconia green body that contains cerium that when sintered at 1500°C for a
hold time of 2hrs. creates trivalent Ce2O3 that provides the sintered body with a singular red color.
Yamauchi fails to teach wherein See Claim Objections) impregnating the debound
intermediate component uses a solution comprising,
at least one metal salt selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Al.
Huguet teaches yttriated zirconia that contains Fe2O3 (trivalent) that when sintered at 1500°C for 2 hrs.
produces a maroon/brown substrate ([0089] lines 5-6, [0090] lines 3-4, [0166] Example 12). Example 12 ,
from a noted group of possible metal salts of Al, Co, Cr, Fe, Ni, Zn, Mn ([0075] lines 1-8), was
impregnated with a solution labeled SB2, which is noted as CoCl2 salt (Table 5). Further, Huguet teaches
that the salt of the impregnation solution produces a change in color in the impregnated area due to
replacement of the elements in the crystal lattice of the coloring pigment in the sintered body; in-situ
formation of spinel pigments, such as Fe3O4, due to the impregnation salt, such as Co, produces a change
in color. For Example 12, the color change is black ([0096], [0097], [0100], [0166]). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to use the Co impregnation solution applied to the Fe2O3 (trivalent) containing green body of Huguet to
the green body of Yamauchi where the trivalent Ce2O3 becomes available during sintering. One would
have been motivated to do so in order to provide desired aesthetics for ornamental articles (including
exterior watch components) , as noted by Huguet ([0112], [0114], [0119].
Regarding Claim 8 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 7 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 7.
Yamauchi teaches wherein, the sintering and thermally treating the impregnated debound
intermediate component makes it possible to form a multi-coloured ceramic timepiece component,
comprising,
the first portion being at least one first non-impregnated surface;
[0183], Example 9 “A zirconia sintered body was obtained in the same manner as in Example
1…the red sintered body of this example…”. The sintered body of Yamauchi is a non-
impregnated surface.
wherein spectrophotometry values are based on measurement carried out on a component
with a polished surface finish; [0159], Example 9/0.5mm thick sample Table 3, [0153} “In the
measurement, the color tone of the sintered body sample having a sample thickness of 1 mm
was measured, a surface of the sample was then polished by 0.5 mm to adjust the sample
thickness to 0.5 mm, and the color tone of the resulting sample was measured”, “The color tone
of a sintered body sample was measured by the method according to JIS Z8722. A typical color-
difference meter (device name: Spectrophotometer SD 3000, available from Nippon Denshoku
Industries Co., Ltd.) was used in the measurement”.
Yamauchi fails to teach,
defined by first colorimetric parameters in Specular Component Included mode: L* in a range
of from 47.5 to 54.1, a* in a range of from 11.7 to 25.1, b* in a range of from 5.2 to 15.5,
and/or,
The second portion being in an impregnated surface area, defined by second colorimetric
parameters in SCI mode: L* less than 47.0, a* in a range of from -0.5 to 1, b* in a range of from
-1 to 1.6,
Yamauchi teaches an SCE measurement mode for samples, including Example 9 (Table 3), and obtaining
L*, a* and b* values. One skilled in the art would know that industry standard measurement equipment
for obtaining L*, a* and b* values when measuring color allows for SCI and SCE mode L* a* b*
values to be collected simultaneously, where,
SCI = Specular Component Included, typically used for color formulation in industry without
being affected by the surface condition of a sample; called “true color”.
SCE – Specular Component Excluded, typically used for quality control of color as sample
surface effects are not included in the measurement and measures the color seen by the
human eye.
In essence, a same measured sample provides two different sets of data with different mode L* a* b*
values based on the modes. While Yamauchi does not teach SCI measurement color directly,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to optimize the processing method of Yamauchi using the SCE L* a* b* measured
values of Yamauchi to target the SCI L* a* b* measured values of the instant claim. One would have
been motivated to do so to provide consistent color tone throughout the sintered body, as noted by
Yamauchi. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process
parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 9 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
The Yamauchi fails to teach,
coating at least a portion of a surface of the timepiece component resulting from
the sintering,
and/or,
grinding and/or polishing, and/or sandblasting, and/or satin-finishing.
Huguet teaches a process for making a multi-colored bezel for a watch ([0004], Fig .1) and “Finally, as
the last action in the production of coloured technical ceramic body, the products may be polished or
subjected to any other final treatment”, [0102]. t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polishing of Hugeut
for the sintered product of Yamauchi, as one would be motivated to do so achieve an exterior
appearance in compliance with the intended use, as noted by Huguet [0102 lines 3-4).
Regarding Claim 17 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the sintering and thermally treating of the impregnated debound
intermediate component comprises,
a single operation of reductive sintering; [0082], [0092], “The sintered body of the
present invention can be manufactured by a method for manufacturing a zirconia sintered body,
the method including a sintering step of sintering, in a reducing atmosphere, a green body”, “In
the sintering step, the red green body is sintered in a reducing atmosphere…”
Regarding Claim 18 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 3 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 3.
Yamauchi teaches wherein the ceramic powder based on yttria-stabilized zirconia comprises,
a proportion in a range of from 1.4 mol% to 4 mol% of yttrium oxide Y2O3 calculated relative to
the zirconia; [0183] lines 1-4, Example 9, “A zirconia sintered body was obtained in the same
manner as in Example 1 except that a mixed powder was prepared by using 48.0 g of the 3 mol
% yttria-containing zirconia powder”.
and comprises cerium oxide in a weight proportion in a range of from 3% to 6% relative to a
total weight of the ceramic powder; [0183] Example 9, “a zirconia sintered body was obtained in
the same manner as in Example 1 except that a mixed powder was prepared by using 48.0 g of
the 3 mol % yttria-containing zirconia powder, 1.5 g of the cerium oxide powder, and 0.5 g of
the aluminum oxide powder”. The total weight of the mixed powder is 50g, therefore,
1.5g cerium oxide/50g total mixed powder = 3% by weight of cerium oxide.
Regarding Claim 19 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 5.
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
the sintering the impregnated debound intermediate component under an oxidizing
atmosphere, subjects the impregnated debound intermediate component to a temperature in a
range of from 1400°C to 1550°C for a thermal hold of at least thirty minutes; [0121], [0123],
[0124], [0107], [0183], “Conditions for the primary sintering step of obtaining a primary
sintered body to be provided to the reduction pressureless sintering may be conditions
described below”, “Primary sintering temperature… 1,450° C. or higher and 1,600° C. or lower”,
“Sintering atmosphere: an oxidizing atmosphere…”. Example 9, which has the same primary
sintering as Example 1, has a “sintering temperature of 1,500° C. for two hours”.
Regarding Claim 20 - Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
the heat treatment under a reducing atmosphere subjects the impregnated debound
intermediate component to a temperature in a range of from 1350°C to 1550°C, in a reducing
atmosphere comprising H2, with a thermal hold of at least 30 minutes; [0111], [0112], [0107],
[0114], “In the secondary sintering step in the pressure sintering method, HIP…The
temperature of the HIP is preferably 1,300° C. or higher and lower than 1,475° C.” Example 9,
which has the same HIP sintering as Example 1, “The primary sintered body….was subjected to
HIP at 1,400° C…for a holding time of one hour”, “The HIP is conducted in a reducing
atmosphere. Trivalent cerium is thereby generated. The reducing atmosphere may include a
pressure medium containing a reducing gas, for example, at least either hydrogen or carbon
monoxide”.
Regarding Claim 21. Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
the first portion is a portion of red color defined by first colorimetric parameters in SCI mode: L*
in a range of from 47.5 to 54.1, a* in a range of from 11.7 to 25.1, b* in a range of from 5.2 to
15.5, and/or the second portion is a portion of black color defined by second colorimetric
parameters in SCI mode: L* less than 47.0, a* in a range of from -0.5 to 1, b* in a range of from
-1 to 1.6.
Yamauchi teaches an SCE measurement mode for a red sintered body [0193] Example 9 (Table
3), and obtaining L*, a* and b* values. One skilled in the art would know that industry standard
measurement equipment for obtaining L*, a* and b* values when measuring color allows for SCI
and SCE mode L* a* b* values to be collected simultaneously, where,
SCI = Specular Component Included, typically used for color formulation in industry without
being affected by the surface condition of a sample; called “true color”.
SCE – Specular Component Excluded, typically used for quality control of color as sample
surface effects are not included in the measurement and measures the color seen by the
human eye.
In essence, a same measured sample provides two different sets of data with different values L* a* b*
values based on the modes. While Yamauchi does not teach SCI measurement color directly,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to measure and optimize the processing method of Yamauchi using the SCE L* a* b*
measured values of Yamauchi to target the SCI L* a* b* measured values of the instant claim. One
would have been motivated to do so to provide consistent color tone throughout the sintered body, as
noted by Yamauchi. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant
process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
wherein spectrophotometry values are based on measurement carried out on a component
with a polished surface finish; [0153], [0159], Table 3 “..the color…of the sintered body…was
measured by a typical color difference meter…Spectrophotometer SD 3000…”, “…the sample
was then polished to 0.5mm…”.
Regarding Claim 22 – Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
the final component at least one core that is continuous, at least mechanically and/or in terms
of concentration, the core extending from the at least one first portion to the at least one
second portion; Claim 22
[0183] Example 9,[0167], [0170], [0172] Example 1, “a zirconia sinter body was
obtained in the same manner as in Example 1,”, “This powder was used as raw material
powder”, “The raw material powder was molded by die pressing…”, “ the subjected greed body
was subjected to primary sintering”, “the primary sintered body …was subjected to HIP”; here,
a single powder composition was used to form the one-piece part that is continuous
mechanically.
Regarding Claim 23. Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
The combination teaches wherein,
wherein the first portion and the second portion are obtained from a same powder formed in a
same operation, and thermally treated in a same operation; The instant claim is previously
disclosed by the combination in Claim 1.
Yamauchi discloses a raw material (powder) and manufacturing an intermediate component having a
form of a green body that is molded by die pressing [0091],[0170] that is red in color after the
sintering processes (Example 9). Huguet cites to impregnate the green body with a solution [0078],
[0079] and that the ceramic bodies can have the second color of black [0112]. Yamauchi discloses
subjecting the green body to a sintering process [0102]. Here, the first portion (red color) and the
second portion (black color) are obtained from the same powder where the powder is formed from the
only forming operation of pressing. Then , subsequent thermal treatments occur.
Regarding Claim 24. Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Yamauchi teaches wherein,
the final component comprises a weight proportion of cerium oxide in a range of from 3% to 5%; [0183], Example 9, “ A zirconia sintered body was obtained…”, “ using 48.0 g of the 3 mol % yttria-containing zirconia powder, 1.5 g of the cerium oxide powder, and 0.5 g of the aluminum oxide powder”. A PHOSITA can calculate wt % of cerium oxide of 3%.
Regarding Claim 25. Yamauchi and Huguet in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
the final component is a ceramic timepiece component which is a watch bezel, a dial, an index,
a winding crown, a push-piece, another watch exterior component, or another portion of a
timepiece movement; While pointed to a structural limitation (See Claim Interpretation) [0298], Yamauchi teaches [0298],“The zirconia sintered bodies according to the present invention … are applicable to members such as …various members such as timepiece components…”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights