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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 06 March 2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claim 21 is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 March 2026.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 6, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CH 707326 A to Mathieu Bonnardin (‘326 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0104973 to Thomas A Kerekes (‘973 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘326 teaches a method for producing a composite timepiece component, wherein, in a first step, a base and at least one first material suitable for additive manufacturing are provided (Fig 1 item 2); in a second step , said base is prepared and positioned on an additive manufacturing means (Fig 1 item 3); in a third step, a first raised portion made of said at least one first material is grown by additive manufacturing on at least one side of said base (Fig 1 item 3). ‘326 does not teach feedback control.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘973 teaches in a fourth step , the development of said first raised portion is verified against a first predetermined setpoint value, and said third step of additive manufacturing with the addition of said first material and said fourth step are repeated iteratively until said first raised portion is seen and verified to have developed to reach or exceed said first predetermined setpoint value, and additive manufacturing with the addition of said first material is stopped when said first raised portion has developed to reach or exceed said first predetermined setpoint value (Fig 2 items 12, 14, 16 and 18) for the benefit of building a dimensionally accurate article without the need for post manufacture milling. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 with those of ‘973 for the benefit of building a mulitmaterial article with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, ‘326 teaches the production method wherein, in said third step of additive manufacturing with the addition of said first material, said first raised portion made of said at least one first material is grown by additive manufacturing on at least two different sides of said base, in two separate steps, one on each side of said base (Fig 5 items 4 and 13).
Regarding claim 18, ‘326 teaches the production method wherein a transparent or translucent base is chosen (Fig 1 item 2).
Regarding claim 19, ‘326 teaches the production method wherein a crystal, a back, a middle, a bezel or a crown is chosen as said base (Fig 1 item 2).
Regarding claim 20, ‘973 teaches the production method wherein said additive manufacturing is carried out by three-dimensional printing (Fig 7 item 76) for the benefit of building a dimensionally accurate article without the need for post manufacture milling. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 with those of ‘973 for the benefit of building a mulitmaterial article with good dimensional accuracy.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘326 in view of ‘973 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 2521394 A to Alejandro Sanz (‘394 hereafter).
Regarding claim 2, ‘does not teach a second material. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘394 teaches the production method wherein, in said first step or in one of the subsequent steps, at least one second material that is different from said first material is provided, and wherein, during said third step or during a fifth step after said first raised portion has developed to reach or exceed said first predetermined setpoint value, a second raised portion made of said at least one second material is grown by additive manufacturing on at least one side of said base and/or on said first raised portion (Fig 1 items 110 and 120) for the benefit of forming a functionally graded article. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combining the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘394 for the benefit of forming a an anisotropic body with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, ‘973 teaches the production method wherein said second raised portion is grown by additive manufacturing from said third step, and wherein, in said fourth step or in a sixth step, the development of said second raised portion is verified against a predetermined second setpoint value, and a manufacturing step, which is said third step of additive manufacturing with the addition of said second material or a said fifth step of additive manufacturing with the addition of said second material, on the one hand, and a verification step, which is said sixth step, on the other hand, are repeated iteratively until said second raised portion is seen and verified to have developed to reach or exceed said predetermined second setpoint value, and additive manufacturing with the addition of said second material is stopped when said second raised portion has developed to reach or exceed said second predetermined setpoint value (Fig 2 items 12, 14, 16 and 18) for the benefit of building a dimensionally accurate article without the need for post manufacture milling. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 with those of ‘973 for the benefit of building a mulitmaterial article with good dimensional accuracy. ‘394 teaches a second material for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 4, ‘973 teaches the production method wherein said second raised portion is grown by additive manufacturing during a said fifth step after said first raised portion has developed to reach or exceed said first predetermined setpoint value, wherein, in a sixth step, following said fifth step, the development of said second raised portion is verified against a second predetermined setpoint value, and said fifth step of additive manufacturing with the addition of said second material, and said sixth step, are repeated iteratively until said second raised portion is seen and verified to have developed to reach or exceed said second predetermined setpoint value, and additive manufacturing with the addition of said second material is stopped when said second raised portion has developed to reach or exceed said second predetermined setpoint value (Fig 2 items 12, 14, 16 and 18) for the benefit of building a dimensionally accurate article without the need for post manufacture milling. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 with those of ‘973 for the benefit of building a mulitmaterial article with good dimensional accuracy. ‘394 teaches a second material for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 5, ‘973 teaches the production method wherein said sixth step is separate from said fourth step (Fig 2 items 14, and 18) for the benefit of building a dimensionally accurate article without the need for post manufacture milling. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 with those of ‘973 for the benefit of building a mulitmaterial article with good dimensional accuracy. ‘394 teaches a second material for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 7, ‘326 teaches the production method wherein, during said third step or during a said fifth step, a second raised portion made of said at least one material is grown by additive manufacturing on at least two different sides of said base, in two separate steps, one on each side of said base (Fig 5 items 4 and 13). ‘394 teaches a second material for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 8, ‘394 teaches the production method wherein, during said third step or during a said fifth step, a second raised portion made of said at least one second material is grown by additive manufacturing on at least part of said first raised portion (Fig 1 items 110 and 120) for the benefit of forming a functionally graded article. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combining the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘394 for the benefit of forming a an anisotropic body with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, ‘394 teaches the production method wherein said first material is chosen to form a said first raised portion constituting a first waterproof joint (abstract) for the benefit of forming a functionally graded article. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combining the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘394 for the benefit of forming a an anisotropic body with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, ‘394 teaches the production method wherein said second material is chosen to form a said second raised portion constituting a second waterproof joint (Fig 1 items 110 and 120) for the benefit of forming a functionally graded article. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combining the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘394 for the benefit of forming a an anisotropic body with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, ‘394 teaches the production method wherein said second material is chosen to form a said second raised portion constituting said second waterproof joint with resistance properties complementary to those of said first waterproof joint (Fig 1 items 110 and 120) for the benefit of forming a functionally graded article. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combining the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘394 for the benefit of forming an anisotropic body with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, ‘394 teaches the production method wherein the material chosen for said first material and for each said at least one second material is capable of forming a water-resistant layer after the additive manufacturing operations adding respectively said first material and said at least one second material (ABSTRACT Fig 1 items 110 and 120) for the benefit of forming a functionally graded article. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to combing the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘394 for the benefit of forming an anisotropic body with good dimensional accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, ‘326 teaches the production method wherein said first raised portion and said second raised portion are produced with geometrically different developments compared to said base (Fig 1 items 2, 3, 4).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘326 in view of ‘973 in view of ‘394 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0384680 to Dikovsky et al. (’680 hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, ‘326 in view of ‘973 does not teach elastomer materials. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘680 the production method wherein elastomer materials are chosen for said first material and for said second material, which materials have different Shore hardnesses in the respective final state of said first raised portion and of said second raised portion after the additive manufacturing operations respectively adding said first material and said second material (paragraph 0497) for the benefit of forming replica articles with variable hardnesses. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of ‘3267 in view of ‘973 in view of ‘394 with those of ‘680 for the benefit of forming articles with variable harndnesses.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘326 in view of ‘973 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 6,129,872 to Justin Jang (‘872 hereafter).
Regarding claim 15, ‘326 in view of ‘973 does not teach optical contrast. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘785 teaches the production method wherein the material chosen for at least said first material is capable of forming a said first raised portion optically contrasting said base, for a display function of said timepiece component (C8L1-C8L21) for the benefit of manufacturing visually distinctive articles. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘872 for the benefit of forming visually distinctive articles.
Regarding claim 17, ‘326 in view of ‘973 does not teach coloration or transparency. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘872 teaches the production method wherein the material chosen for at least said first material is capable of forming a said first raised portion that is transparent and/or coloured (C8L1-C8L21) for the benefit of manufacturing visually distinctive articles. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘872 for the benefit of forming visually distinctive articles.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘326 in view of ‘973 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0136887 to Guillemette et al. (‘887 hereafter).
Regarding claim 16, ‘326 in view of ‘973 does not teach fluorescence or phosphorescence. In the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, ‘887 teaches the production method wherein the material chosen for at least said first material is capable of forming a said first raised portion that is fluorescent or phosphorescent (paragraph 0261) for the benefit of indicating damage. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘326 in view of ‘973 with those of ‘887 for the benefit of forming a damage-indicating article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
