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 § 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 1-2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (GB 2032657) in view of Awano (US 20170060093) and Shibazaki (JPS63249080).
Regarding claim 1, Enomoto et al. discloses (Figs. 1, 5) a timepiece dial comprising: a first substrate (20) on which an index (12) protrudes from a first main surface (20); and a second substrate (22) overlapped on the first main surface (20), wherein a through hole through which the index is inserted and exposed is formed in the second substrate (Figs. 5-6 show index 12 exposed above second substrate 22).
Enomoto et al. does not show a surface decoration having unevenness formed on the second substrate and a part of the index protruding upward from an upper surface of the second substrate.
Awano teaches (Fig. 2) a surface decoration (4a, 42) having unevenness (Fig. 4) formed on a second substrate (41) overlapped on a first substrate (43). See paragraph [0041].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Enomoto et al.’s second substrate to have an uneven surface decoration, as suggested by Awano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable effect of imbuing the watch dial with a decorative visual effect due to light refracting and reflecting ([0073] of Awano).
The combination of Enomoto and Awano does not show a part of the index protruding upward from an upper surface of the second substrate.
Shibazaki teaches (Fig. 1) a first substrate (1) and a second substrate (2), wherein a part of an index on the first substrate protrudes upward from an upper surface of the second substrate (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Enomoto’s index so that it protrudes upwards from an upper surface of the second substrate as suggested by Shibazaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve a desired aesthetic appearance that displays both the first substrate’s original visual appearance and enhanced/augmented visual appearance (abstract of Applicant’s provided translation: “the abbreviated form and the dial base can be integrally expressed”).
Regarding claim 2, Enomoto et al. discloses the timepiece dial according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the second substrate is covered with a transparent resin layer (abstract discloses 22 being transparent resin).
Regarding claim 5, Enomoto et al. discloses the timepiece dial according to claim 1, wherein the first and second substrates are bonded by at least one of an adhesive (page 2, lines 57-68 discloses epoxy, which is an adhesive, bonding the first and second substrates).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 10, Enomoto et al. discloses a timepiece comprising the timepiece dial according to claims 1-2 and 5, respectively (page 2, lines 82-84).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. in view of Awano and Shibazaki as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hoshino (US 20210405586).
Regarding claim 3, Enomoto et al. discloses the timepiece dial according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate is formed of plastic (the abstract discloses 22 being resin, which is a thermoplastic). Enomoto et al. also discloses the first substrate being metal (page 2, lines 62-64).
Enomoto et al. does not disclose the metal being an alloy containing one or two or more of copper, iron, titanium, gold, silver, or platinum.
Hoshino teaches a dial comprising a metal alloy containing one or two or more of copper, gold, silver, or platinum ([0029]).
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 Enomoto et al.’s metal for Hoshino’s metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of obtaining a dial with a known and desired hardness and color.
Regarding claim 8, Enomoto et al. discloses a timepiece comprising the timepiece dial according to claim 3 (page 2, lines 82-84).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. in view of Awano and Shibazaki as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 6538959).
Regarding claim 4, Enomoto et al. in view of Awano discloses the timepiece dial according to claim 1.
The combination of Enomoto et al., Awano, and Shibazaki does not show the second substrate being subjected to a surface treatment by at least one of coating, printing, wet plating, or dry plating.
Yamaguchi teaches a substrate subjected to a dry plating and coating surface treatment (abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dry plated and coated Enomoto et al.’s second substrate, as suggested by Yamaguchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to as a known and predictable solution for improving the dial’s visual appearance (column 2, lines 53-57).
Regarding claim 9, Enomoto et al. discloses a timepiece comprising the timepiece dial according to claim 4 (page 2, lines 82-84).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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
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 Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:30-5:30 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
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights