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 3 and 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.
Claim 3 is indefinite because characters and words inside parentheses are not considered, so the limitation “one or two or more of (A) to (F)” is incomplete. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been read as -one or two or more of copper, iron, titanium, gold, silver, or platinum-.
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).
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.
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).
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 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 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. and Awano 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takasawa (US 20120230166) discloses (Fig. 1) a dial comprised of two overlapping substrates (1) bonded by an adhesive (2 and [0032]).
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.
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 2833