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 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 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.
It is unclear what is meant by “a color difference between a portion where the first transparent film is formed and a portion where the first transparent film is not formed is 1.6 or greater in plan view viewed from a thickness direction of the substrate [emphasis added].” What type of color difference such wavelength, saturation, gamut, color volume, etc. is unclear. Until corrected, art can not be applied.
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) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206791844 U (SPASOV, V) in view of JP 2010210343 A (KAWAKAMI ATSUSHI).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
288
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
570
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1-2 and 8-9, Spasov teaches a watch component [see the abstract: a timepiece component, comprising a mother substrate (1)] comprising a region, the region including: a substrate [surface area of the substrate], a multilayer film covering at least a part of the substrate and including a color adjusting film having a function of adjusting a color tone [2, see machine translation: “the substrate 1 may also include a middle layer 2. the middle layer can have multiple functions. it can be used for improving the tungsten oxide layer on a substrate. Another function can adjust the colour reflected by the interference effect. For this purpose, the layer 2 may be a single layer or composed of a plurality of low refractive index layers and high refractive index layers are alternately stacked so as to achieve the desired interference effect, one or more layer of these layers may have absorption capability”], a first transparent film [4].
Spasov lacks the first transparent film having a predetermined refractive index, and formed in a freely selected pattern, and a second transparent film stacked at the first transparent film or the multilayer film, and having a refractive index different from that of the first transparent film by a predetermined difference.
However, Kawakami’s figure 8 teaches first transparent film [211A from the bottom to the first layer without a groove] having a predetermined refractive index [see description of figure 1: “the polarizing plate 21 has a configuration in which two types of polarizing film layers (A layer 211A and B layer 211B) having different refractive indexes in the direction X are alternately stacked”], and formed in a freely selected pattern [see figures 4-6], and a second transparent film stacked at the first transparent film or the multilayer film [layers 211B without the grooves], and having a refractive index different from that of the first transparent film by a predetermined difference [see the description of figure 1: “the refractive index (n .sub.AX ) in the X-axis direction (right direction in FIG. 1) of the A layer 211A is different from the refractive index (n .sub.BX ) in the X-axis direction of the B layer 211B.”]
Kawakami teaches that a timepiece member and a timepiece dial that can form a superior timepiece, with the appearance of the timepiece being full of expensive-looking over a long period of time, and to provide a timepiece that can present superior aesthetic appearance, full of expensive-looking over a long period of time would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kawakami with Spasov.
Regarding method claims 8-9, the method steps are merely a recitation of the product limitations in the form of method steps, and thus, are inherent to the rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 3, Spasov et al. teach the watch component according to claim 1, wherein a freely selected pattern is formed at a surface, of the substrate, covered with the multilayer film [inherent to the combination].
Per claim 4, Spasov et al. teach the watch component according to claim 1, wherein the freely selected pattern of the first transparent film is formed by an inkjet printer [this is a product by process limitation that doesn’t material alter the product, and is thus, inherent to the product, see MPEP 2113].
Per claim 5, Spasov et al. teach the watch component according to claim 1, but lacks wherein an absolute value of a difference in refractive index between the first transparent film and the second transparent film is 0.06 or greater. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the first and second transparent layers with a refractive difference of at least 0.06 or greater in order to improve contrast. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 7, Spasov et al. teach a watch configured using the watch component according to claim 1, wherein any one of a dial, an oscillating weight, an abbreviation, a hand, a bezel, or a belt is configured using the watch component [see machine translation: “the substrate is a watch dial”].
Per claim 10, Spasov et al. teach the method for manufacturing a watch component according to claim 8, further comprising a substrate pattern forming step of forming a freely selected pattern at a surface, of the substrate, to be covered with the multilayer film, substrate pattern forming step being performed before the multilayer film forming step [the method steps are merely a recitation of the product limitations in the form of method steps, and thus, are inherent to the rejection of claim 1].
Per claim 11, Spasov et al. teach the method for manufacturing a watch component according to claim 8, but lacks the first transparent film forming step, the first transparent film is formed in a freely selected pattern by an inkjet printer. Official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to form the transparent film selected pattern by an inkjet printer in order to simplify manufacturing. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871