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
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LARRIERE et al. (2019/0302697 A1), in view of Cordier et al. (US 2023/0018152 A1) and Jeanrenaud et al. (US 2020/0293001 A1).
Re Claims 1, 13 and 17, LARRIERE discloses a method of manufacturing of a watch component 110 intended to be mounted in a timepiece 100, comprising the steps consisting of in: forming a blank 1, the blank comprising a ceramic material and/or a metallic material and/or a cermet (Abstract and Pars. 0021, 0033 and 0035) and at least one base surface and at least one projecting portion 2 projecting from the base surface (See figure 1), forming at least one coating layer 4 covering at least a part of the base surface 1 and/or covering at least a part of the at least one projecting portion 2, and removing at least a part of said at least one coating layer 4 (Pars. 0035-0052, Figs. 1-8), texturing by laser processing at least a part of the base surface 1 previously covered by said at least one coating layer 4 and/or at least a part of the at least one projecting portion 2 previously covered by said at least one coating layer 4, and/or at least a part of the at least one coating layer 4 (Pars. 0092 and 0093). LARRIERE does not explicitly disclose forming a blank by injection and removing by laser ablation at least a part of said at least one coating layer.
Cordier discloses a method of manufacturing a watch component 1, comprising the steps: forming a blank, particularly by injection, comprising at least one base surface and at least one projecting portion 11 projecting from the base surface 1 (Pars. 0026- 0029, Figs. 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a blank by injection as disclosed by Cordier, while performing the method of LARRIERE, as a known method of forming a blank for manufacturing a watch component. The combination does not explicitly disclose removing by laser ablation at least a part of said at least one coating layer.
Jeanrenaud discloses a method of manufacturing of a watch component 1000, comprising the steps consisting in: forming a blank, comprising at least one base surface 1 and at least one projecting portion 20-22 projecting from the base surface 1, forming at least one coating layer 2 covering at least a part of the base surface 1 and/or covering at least a part of the at least one projecting portion 20-22, removing by laser ablation at least a part of said at least one coating layer 2 (Pars. 0018-0020 and 0026-0033, Figs. 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of LARRIERE by removing by laser ablation at least a part of said at least one coating layer, as disclosed by Jeanrenaud, as a known alternative means of removing a part of a coating layer.
Re Claim 2, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. The combination discloses the step of removal by laser ablation is carried out to: locally remove a total thickness of the coating 2 and optionally a thickness of the blank from the base surface 1, and/or locally remove a thickness of the coating 2 lower than the total thickness of the coating 2, and/or locally remove a variable thickness of the coating 2 strictly lower than the total thickness of the coating 2 (See Jeanrenaud, Pars. 0026-0030, Fig. 8).
Re Claim 3, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses at least one projecting portion 2 comprising at least one surface forming a top and at least one surface forming a side arranged between the top and the base surface (See figures 1 and 2), the step of formation said at least one coating layer 4 is provided to form a coating 4 covering at least a part of the base surface 1, at least a part of the surface forming the top of the at least one projecting portion 2 and at least a part of the surface forming the side of the at least one projecting portion 2 (See Figure 1), the removal step is carried out to remove the coating covering the base surface 1, and the texturing step is carried out to texture at least a part of the base surface 1 (Pars. 0035-0052, 0092 and 0093, Figs. 1-8).
Re Claim 4, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. The combination does not explicitly disclose the step of removal by laser ablation and the step of texturing by laser processing are at least partially simultaneous, and/or carried out with one and the same laser source. LARRIERE however discloses performing laser ablation and laser texturing with a laser source (not shown) (Pars. 0044 and 0092). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the step of removal by laser ablation and the step of texturing by laser processing with one and the same laser source, for the benefit of not requiring additional tools to manufacture the watch component.
Re Claim 5, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. The LARRIERE discloses the step of removal by laser ablation and the step of texturing by laser processing are carried out with an ultrashort pulsed laser source, and preferably with a pulsed laser source arranged to emit pulses in the range of the nanosecond, and more preferably in the range of the picosecond, and more preferably still in the range of the femtosecond (Pars. 0044 and 0092).
Re Claim 6, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE does not explicitly disclose a step of machining and/or grinding of the blank, executed after the step of formation of the blank and in particular between the step of formation of the blank and the step of formation of said at least one coating layer. Jeanrenaud discloses a method of manufacturing a watch component, comprising: a step of machining and/or grinding of a blank 1, executed after a step of formation of the blank 1 and in particular between the step of formation of the blank and a step of formation of at least one coating layer 2, to form a first pattern on a base surface or the blank (Pars. 0016 and 0026-0028, Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of LARRIERE, by machining and/or grinding the blank, after the step of formation of the blank and in particular between the step of formation of the blank and the step of formation of said at least one coating layer, as disclosed by Jeanrenaud, to form a first pattern on a base surface or the blank, as desired.
Re Claim 7, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE does not explicitly disclose a step of finishing the blank executed between the step of formation of the blank and the step of formation of said at least one coating layer.
Jeanrenaud discloses a method of manufacturing a watch component, comprising: a step of finishing of a blank executed between a step of formation of the blank and a step of formation of said at least one coating layer 2 to form a first pattern on a base surface or the blank (Pars. 0016 and 0026-0028, Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of LARRIERE, by performing finishing of the blank executed between a step of formation of the blank and a step of formation of said at least one coating layer to form a first pattern on a base surface or the blank.
Re Claim 8, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses the step of formation of said at least one coating layer 2 comprises a step of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD), and/or a step of Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD), and/or a step of Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) (Pars. 0043-0045 and 0063).
Re Claim 9, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses the step of formation of said at least one coating layer comprises the formation of at least one layer of ceramic material and/or at least one layer of material comprising a metallic composite (Pars. 0043-0045, 0063 and 0079).
Re Claim 10, the combination as applied to claim 9 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses the step of formation of said at least one coating layer 2 comprises the formation of at least one layer comprising at least: a metal carbide, in particular tungsten carbide, and/or titanium carbide, and/or zirconium carbide, and/or tantalum carbide, and/or niobium carbide, and/or chromium carbide, and/or hafnium carbide, and/or at least one metal nitride, in particular chromium nitride, and/or boron nitride, and/or zirconium nitride, and/or titanium nitride, and/or tantalum nitride, and/or niobium nitride, and/or hafnium nitride, and/or a combination of different metal carbides as above and/or a combination of different metal nitrides as above, and/or a combination of a metal nitride as above and a metal carbide as above in an alloy (Pars. 0063 and 0079).
Re Claim 11, the combination as applied to claim 10 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses the metal of the at least one coating layer is part of the group comprising tungsten (W), and/or titanium (Ti), and/or zirconium (Zr), and/or tantalum (Ta), and/or niobium (Nb), and/or chromium (Cr), and/or hafnium (Hf), or their alloys such as titanium-aluminum (TiAl), chromium-aluminum (CrAl), or hafnium-titanium (HfTi) alloys (Pars. 0063 and 0079).
Re Claim 12, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses the texturing step is carried out to texture at least one coating layer and/or the base surface and/or the projecting portion forming a satin finishing, and/or a brushing, and/or a snailing, and/or a sunray brushing, and/or at least one côthe de Genève, and/or circular graining and/or spotting and/or any type of decoration, in particular any type of decoration with repeated patterns (Par. 0092).
Re Claim 14, the combination as applied to claim 1 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses a watch component 110 intended to be mounted in a timepiece 100, comprising a body or taking the form of a body formed from a blank according to the manufacturing method of claim 1, the body comprises a base surface 1, at least one projecting portion 2 projecting from to the base surface 1 and comprising a top and at least one side arranged between the base surface and the top (See figures 1 and 2), the top and said at least one side are covered by the at least one coating layer 4 (See figures 1 and 3), and the base surface 1 is textured by the texturing by the laser processing (Pars. 0044, 0092 and 0093, Fig. 8).
Re Claim 15, the combination as applied to claim 13 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE discloses forming a watch decoration component 110 such as a bezel, or a bezel disc, or a dial or a crown, or a pushbutton, or a clasp cover (Par. 0093, Fig. 8).
Re Claim 16, the combination as applied to claim 13 remains as previously applied. LARRIERE does not explicitly disclose the at least one projecting portion comprises at least a top and a side arranged between the top of the projecting portion and the base surface, and said at least one side has a relief angle to a normal of the base surface preferably between 5° and 25°, in particular between 10° and 20°.
Jeanrenaud discloses a watch component intended to be mounted in a timepiece 1000 (Par. 0025), comprising a body or taking the form of a body formed from a blank; said blank comprising at least one base surface 1 and at least one projecting portion 20-22 projecting from the base surface 1; the at least one projecting portion 20-22 comprises at least a top and a side arranged between the top of the projecting portion 20-22 and the base surface 1, and said at least one side has a relief angle to a normal of the base surface preferably between 5° and 25°, in particular between 10° and 20°, for the benefit of forming a fine pattern (Par. 0028, Figs. 1- 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of LARRIERE, by providing at least one projecting portion comprises at least a top and a side arranged between the top of the projecting portion and the base surface, and said at least one side has a relief angle to a normal of the base surface preferably between 5° and 25°, in particular between 10° and 20°, as disclosed by Jeanrenaud, for the benefit of forming a fine pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Larriere, Cordier, and Jeanrenaud is drawn from technically incompatible fields and a person of ordinary skill in the art working within the field of thin-film surface decoration of pre-formed horological blanks, as disclosed by Larriere, would have no reason to consult a reference directed to the entirely separate problem of managing co-injection and sintering shrinkage in thick ceramic multi- material bodies, as disclosed by Jeanrenaud.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is well known in the art and disclosed by Larriere, horological blanks may be formed of ceramic materials (See Larriere, Abstract and Pars. 0018, 0021, and 0033). Larriere further discloses that his disclosed process may be used to produce an external element or a timepiece dial, or a jewelry component, made of non-conductive material, especially ceramic or similar (Par. 0033). Obviously one of ordinary skill in the art would consult a reference directed toward managing co-injection and sintering shrinkage in thick ceramic multi- material bodies to produce a ceramic blank.
Applicant argues the combination of Larriere, Cordier, and Jeanrenaud is technically inoperable because Larriere teaches away from the texturing limitation of claim 1, as Larriere discloses a step of before or after the chemical removal of the sacrificial protective metal layer, the compound thus formed is mechanically leveled on the upper level of the base.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Larriere explicitly discloses a step of texturing by laser processing at least a part of the base surface 1 previously covered by said at least one coating layer 4 and/or at least a part of the at least one projecting portion 2 previously covered by said at least one coating layer 4, and/or at least a part of the at least one coating layer 4 (Pars. 0092 and 0093). Further, the “essential step” of before or after the chemical removal of the sacrificial protective metal layer, the compound thus formed is mechanically leveled on the upper level of the base is performed before the step of texturing by laser processing (See Larriere, Pars. 0056-0059, 0092 and 0093). Since the step of texturing by laser processing is performed after the mechanically leveling step, the texturing is not detrimental to the mechanical leveling. If Larriere actually taught away from texturing, there would be no disclosure in the reference of performing the texturing step. Further, the secondary references of Cordier, and Jeanrenaud are not relied upon for the claimed texturing.
Applicant argues the Office Action has not articulated an adequate motivation to combine all three references, and the proposed combination relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As may be noted in both of the previous and instant office actions, the Examiner has provided suitable motivation for the combination of references. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 PM.
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, David Bryant can be reached at (571)272-4526. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights