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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are currently amended.
New claim 16 has been added, but is withdrawn since claim 16 is drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 9-16 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-9 are presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
Two (2) information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/13/2024 and 03/10/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: (a) the instant abstract includes the text “(Fig. 1)” in a separate paragraph when the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph, and (b) the instant abstract recites “The present invention relates to” in line 1 and “the invention also covers” in line 5, which are phrases which can be implied.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sintering is a flash or SPS type sintering” in line 19. The term “SPS” should be introduced as “spark plasma sintering” in the claim before relying on the “SPS” abbreviation. Abbreviations are typically included in parentheses after introducing the full term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said sintering temperatures and pressures”. The claim introduces “a sintering temperature” and “a sintering pressure”. Only one sintering temperature and one sintering pressure are introduced, in contrast to the claimed “said sintering temperatures and pressures” (emphasis added).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “gold (Au), silver, platinum (Pt)”. The claim recites elemental symbols for all elements except silver. It is suggested to add the elemental symbol of silver to maintain consistency within the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “atomizing said additional materials so as to produce the corresponding powder or powders”. Claim 1 introduced “additional powders” and would be a more descriptive term than the term “powder or powders” of claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The melting temperatures of the claimed first and second materials of claim 1 are interpreted as inherent since one of ordinary skill in the art understands metallic powders inherently have a melting temperature at atmospheric pressure.
Regarding the additional materials of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8, the additional materials are interpreted as optional throughout the claims in view of claim 1 reciting “and optionally one or more additional materials”.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation “said materials in powder form” in line 12. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether “said materials in powder form” refers to the claimed first, second, and optional additional materials, to only the optional additional materials, or to a different subset of these materials.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least 50%”, and the claim also recites “or 80% or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sintering is a flash or SPS type sintering” in line 19. The term “type” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the claimed sintering must be flash sintering, SPS sintering, or any “type” of sintering similar to either flash sintering or SPS sintering.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “at least 50% by mass”, and the claim also recites “or 80% or more” and “or even 95% by mass” which are two different narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the powders are arranged” in line 12. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether “the powders” refers to the claimed first, second, and optional additional materials, to only the optional additional materials, to a different subset of these materials, or to different unrecited powders.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the powders are arranged in step S4” (emphasis added) in line 12. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since claim 1 recites step S4 is a sintering step and powders are arranged in step S3 (emphasis added).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003/183710 A of Yamazaki (as cited in IDS mailed 03/10/2026 with reference to its English machine translation), and additionally or alternatively, in view of FR 3088637 A1 of Navone (with reference to its English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-9, Yamazaki teaches a noble metal ornament member and its production method (Title, noble metal reads on claimed noble metal; production method reads on claimed process). Yamazaki teaches the disclosed technology belongs to the technical field of precious metal decorative components such as necklaces and watch dials, as well as the manufacturing technology and decorative parts or jewelry parts ([0001], watch dial reads on claimed watch component).
Regarding the first and second materials of claims 1-3, Yamazaki teaches a gold-aluminum alloy consisting of 70 wt% to 85 wt% Au-remaining wt% Al having a purple-gold color and diffusion bonding of the sintered body with gold, silver, platinum as a whole or platinum, or alloys mainly composed of these, which have a reinforcing effect ([0007], gold-aluminum alloy reads on claimed first material and silver, platinum or alloys reads on the claimed second material; the materials of Yamazaki read on the claimed based on at least two precious or noble metals or alloys of precious or noble metals, remaining distinct from one another). Yamazaki teaches the gold-aluminum alloy is a powder of uniform composition, and for the reinforcing effect, gold, silver, platinum as a whole or alloy mainly composed of these is made into spherical powders ([0007], both materials are in powder form).
Regarding the additional materials of claims 1-3, Yamazaki teaches the same methods can be used for other precious metal decorative members that are composite sintered bodies having a complex multilayer structure formed by layering other two-layer sintered alloys or three-layer sintered alloys ([0023] which summarizes embodiments of [0018]-[0022]).
Yamazaki further teaches an experimental example using eight types of powders, including Au, 83.5 wt% Au-16.5 wt% Cu, 58.5 wt% Au-22 wt% Cu-3.5 wt% Zn-3 wt% Pd-13 wt% Ni, Ag, 92.5 wt% Ag-remaining wt% Cu, Pt, 95 wt% Pt-remaining Pd, and 85 wt% Pt-remaining Pd alloy (emphasis added, [0029], Experimental Example 4, powders reads on the claimed first, second, and additional materials and have compositions overlapping with the claimed ranges; an embodiment with a first gold-based alloy and a second Ag, Pt, or Pd alloy reads on the claimed remaining distinct from one another of claim 1).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitations a process for manufacturing a watch component based on at least two precious or noble metals or alloys of precious or noble metals, remaining distinct from one another, said watch component comprising at least 50% or 80% or more, by mass of these metals and/or alloys, the method comprising: selecting - a first material in the form of a first powder, said first material having a first melting temperature at atmospheric pressure, - a second material in the form of a second powder, said second material having a second melting temperature at atmospheric pressure, - and optionally one or more additional materials different from the first and second materials, in the form of as many corresponding additional powders of claim 1, wherein said first, second and additional materials designate said precious or noble metals or precious or noble metal alloys contained in the watch component of claim 1, wherein said first, second and additional materials are selected from gold (Au), silver, platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), osmium (Os) and alloys thereof of claim 2, and wherein said alloys comprise at least 50% by mass, or 80% or more, or even 95% by mass of a precious or noble metal or a combination of precious or noble metals of claim 3.
Regarding step S3 of arranging powders in a mold of claims 1 and 4, Yamazaki teaches a broad disclosure where Figure 1 shows a state in which material is filled into a sintered mold to form a two-layer structure, where 1 is a pressure punch, 2 is a mold die, 3 is a material of Au-residual wt% Al alloy spherical powder with a concentration of 70 wt% to 85 wt%, 4 is a spherical powder of gold, silver, platinum or alloys mainly composed of these, and 5 is a lower fixed punch base (Fig. 1, [0019], mold die reads on claimed mold; 3 reads on claimed first material and 4 reads on claimed second material; arrangement of Yamazaki shown in Fig. 1 reads on the claimed a step S3 of arranging said materials in powder form in a mold, so as to form an assembly of at least two unmixed powders, in which said powders are in contact).
Yamazaki teaches an experimental example where one powder is placed in the lower part of a graphite mold and another powder is filled on top of it (Experimental Example 4 of [0029] uses the steps of [0026], Fig. 1, mold 2 reads on claimed mold; materials in mold reads on the claimed a step S3 of arranging said materials in powder form in a mold, so as to form an assembly of at least two unmixed powders, in which said powders are in contact). Yamazaki teaches a two-layer structure consisted of a sintered body with a purple-gold color in the upper layer 3' and a sintered body with gold, pink, and silver colors in the lower layer 4' ([0029], see Figs. 1 and 2, two-layer structure reads on the claimed in which the powders are arranged in step S4 so as to independently form one or more alternating clusters, rows or layers).
Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitations a step S3 of arranging said materials in powder form in a mold, so as to form an assembly of at least two unmixed powders, in which said powders are in contact of claim 1 and in which the powders are arranged in step S4 so as to independently form one or more alternating clusters, rows or layers of claim 4.
Regarding step S4 of sintering of claims 1, 6, and 7, Yamazaki teaches a well-known electrical discharge sintering method (Abstract, claim 3, reads on claimed sintering). Yamazaki further teaches there are no particular limitations on the sintering conditions ([0025]). Yamazaki teaches sintering was performed under an Ar atmosphere with a constant pressurized stress of 400 kgf/cm2 by applying electric heating at four temperatures: 700°C, 750°C, 800°C, and 850°C (Experimental Example 4 of [0029] uses the steps of [0026]; 400 kgf/cm2 is equivalent to 39 N/mm2). The sintering temperature and pressure overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Regarding the flash or SPS type sintering of claim 1, Yamazaki teaches an electrical discharge sintering (claim 3) and temperatures and pressure overlapping with the instant invention. In view of the 112(b) rejection in this Office action regarding “type”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the electrical discharge sintering of Yamazaki to meet the claimed flash or SPS type sintering given the overlap in sintering temperature and pressure and that both Yamazaki and the instant invention arrive at the same product.
Additionally, or alternatively, Navone teaches a method for manufacturing a zirconia-based article for use in watchmaking (Abstract).
Navone and Yamazaki are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with making watch parts from powder materials using sintering.
Navone teaches flash sintering encompasses the sintering processes designated by the acronyms SPS (for Spark Plasma Sintering), HEDS (for Hot Electric Discharge Sintering), PAS (for Plasma Activated Sintering), and FAPAS (for Field-Activated Pressure-Assisted Synthesis). Since Navone teaches SPS, HEDS, PAS, and FAPAS are encompassed by flash sintering, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any appropriate sintering type taught by Navone in the sintering of Yamazaki since Navone teaches flash sintering, SPS, and electric discharge sintering are known alternatives for sintering powder to manufacture a watch part. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Since electrical discharge sintering is a type of flash sintering and is an alternative to SPS, as taught by Navone, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the electrical discharge sintering of Yamazaki reads on the claimed flash or SPS type sintering.
Regarding the none of said materials melts limitation of claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that sintering, by definition, does not entail melting of a material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the sintering of Yamazaki does not melt the material. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect none of the material melting given the overlap in powder material, sintering type, sintering temperature, and sintering pressure between the method of Yamazaki and the claimed invention.
Modified Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitations a step S4 of sintering under conditions that produce a solid part from the assembly of unmixed powders of claim 1, the sintering is a flash or SPS type sintering, operated at a sintering temperature and a sintering pressure, said sintering temperatures and pressures being determined so that none of said materials melts of claim 1, wherein the sintering temperature is between 600°C and 1600°C of claim 6, and wherein the sintering pressure is a mechanical pressure between 20 and 180 N/mm2 of claim 7.
Regarding step S5 of demolding of claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a watch dial is obtained by being cut into a desired shape and having a finish polish (claim 4, Fig. 9, [0007], [0012], [0022]). While Yamazaki does not explicitly disclose demolding, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the sintered body has to be removed from the mold of Yamazaki to obtain the solid part shown in Fig. 9. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Modified Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitation a step S5 of demolding said solid part to obtain a demolded part of claim 1.
Modified Yamazaki therefore reads on all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6, and 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamazaki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Yamazaki teaches spherical alloy powder is produced by a centrifugal spray method that minimizes the surface oxide layer of powder particles ([0008], [0010], [0011]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands a centrifugal spray method is a method of atomizing to form powders. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Modified Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitation further comprising one or more of a step Si of atomizing said first material so as to produce said first powder, a step S2 of atomizing said second material so as to produce said second powder and a step Si of atomizing said additional materials so as to produce the corresponding powder or powders of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamazaki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Yamazaki teaches when the sintered material for precious metal ornaments obtained as described above was further cut into a desired shape and then polished to a finish, the machinability was good, with no cracks occurring during processing with grinding wheels, etc. ([0033], cutting and polishing read on the claimed machining and finishing the demolded solid part). Yamazaki teaches a watch dial that has been cut from a thin sheet (Fig. 9, [0022]). Since Yamazaki teaches a watch dial and cutting into a desired shape, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the final product of Yamazaki is a watch component.
Modified Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitation further comprising one or more of the steps: - S6 rectifying the demolded solid part to the desired thicknesses, - S7 machining the demolded solid part, - S8 finishing the demolded solid part, so as to obtain said watch component of claim 9.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003/183710 A of Yamazaki (as cited in IDS mailed 03/10/2026 with reference to its English machine translation), and additionally or alternatively, in view of FR 3088637 A1 of Navone (with reference to its English machine translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0320158 A1 of Duffy.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamazaki teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Modified Yamazaki does not explicitly teach wherein one or more of said first, second and additional powders comprises one or more additives.
Duffy teaches jewelry or a metal composition containing an additive or personalizing substance such as a nucleic acid, sand or other suitable component intended to have personal significance to the wearer (Abstract, reads on claimed additive). Duffy and Yamazaki are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with making jewelry with metal powder and both use precious metal powders and metallurgical techniques to form the metal articles. Duffy teaches a method of incorporating a biological material into a metal article by encapsulating the biological material in a polymer, mixing the encapsulated biological material with a metal powder, and forming the resulting mixture into a metal article (claim 5, reads on claimed wherein one or more of said first, second and additional powders comprises one or more additives).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the additive or personalizing substance of Duffy to the watch dial of Yamazaki to include an item with personal significance to the wearer, as taught by Duffy.
Modified Yamazaki therefore reads on the limitation wherein one or more of said first, second and additional powders comprises one or more additives of claim 5.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0305260 A1 of Boccard (as cited in IDS mailed 03/10/2026) is considered relevant to claim 5. Boccard teaches a timepiece component to which it is possible to add oxides to strengthen the component, or pigment to obtain a colored material (Title, [0005], claim 7).
US 2020/0086678 A1 of Bienvenu (as cited in IDS mailed 03/10/2026) is considered relevant to claim 9. Bienvenu teaches a method of manufacturing a watch component with a finishing operation including at least one of mechanical action of an abrasive mixture by impacts, tribofinishing, mechanical polishing, chemical polishing, barrel finishing, trovalising, sandblasting, microbead blasting, and wet jetting (claims 1-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights