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 1-6, in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged. New claims 11-13 belong to the invention of Group I and will be examined therewith. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 5, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 and 07/10/2025 considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations in lines 4 and 7-8 reciting “the first layer being including a first bumpy pattern” and “the second layer being including a second bumpy pattern” should be amended to recite --the first layer including a first bumpy pattern-- and --the second layer including a second bumpy pattern--, where the phrase “being including” is redundant.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation in line 7 reciting “a thickness of the forth layer” contains a typographical error and should be amended to recite --a thickness of the fourth layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2011-137762, machine translation via EPO provided) in view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2023/0297031, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al. teaches a dial (100; watch part) comprising a light-transmitting substrate (111; base), a light-transmitting colored resin layer (112; first layer) formed on the first surface (111a) facing the viewing side of the light-transmitting substrate, and a light-transmitting transparent resin layer (113; second layer) formed on the viewing side of the colored resin layer ([0032], see Fig. 3 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
979
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ito et al. teaches that steps (111c, 111f) are formed on a part of the first surface (111a) of the substrate ([0033]), wherein the steps correspond to the claimed base bumpy pattern. As shown in Fig. 3, the colored resin layer (112) and transparent resin layer (113) include respective first and second bumpy patterns which overlap with and correspond to the base bumpy pattern formed by the steps (111c, 111f).
Ito et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that a third layer is formed by performing ink jet printing using a metal nano-ink containing metal nanoparticles on a surface of the transparent resin layer (113; second layer).
Nakazawa et al. teaches a dial (1) having a similar structure in which a base material (2) has a pattern shape (21; base bumpy pattern) formed at a surface thereof, and a first light-transmissive layer (3) laminated on the surface of the base material ([0018], Figs. 1, 6). Nakazawa et al. teaches that the surface of the first light-transmissive layer (3) is treated with a liquid repellent treatment, and that the first printed layer (5; third layer) is formed on the surface of the first liquid repellent layer (4) by an inkjet method, for example using an ink (50; metal nano-ink) containing silver nanoparticles ([0024]-[0025]). In particular, Nakazawa et al. teaches that the first printed layer (5) is formed by printing a pattern shape (51; printed pattern) formed by a dot pattern which is an ejection pattern of the ink ([0018], [0026], Figs. 1, 5, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dial taught by Ito et al. by forming a third layer of a metal nano-ink containing metal nanoparticles on a surface of the second layer, as suggested by Nakazawa et al., in order to enhance the decorative effects of the watch component.
Regarding claim 2, Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above with respect to claim 1, Ito et al. teaches a dial (100) comprising a substrate (111; base) having a colored resin layer (112; first layer) and a transparent resin layer (113; second layer) formed thereon, and Ito et al. renders obvious the formation of a printed layer (5; third layer) on the transparent resin layer. Ito et al. does not expressly teach a fourth layer formed over the third layer as claimed.
As noted above, Nakazawa et al. teaches a first printed layer (5; third layer) formed over the first light-transmissive layer (3; second layer) and further teaches that a second light-transmissive layer (6; fourth layer) may be layered on the surface of the first printed layer (5; third layer) ([0049], Fig. 6). The second light-transmissive layer (6) is formed of a light-transmissive resin (second resin material) and is formed at the surface of the first printed layer in order to protect the first printed layer and to improve environmental resistance ([0051], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the watch part taught by Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. by forming a fourth layer made of a second resin material having light-transmitting properties on a surface of the third layer, as suggested by Nakazawa et al., in order to protect the third layer and to improve the environmental resistance of the watch part.
Regarding claim 3, Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ito et al. further teaches that the colored resin layer (112; first layer) is formed by mixing a pigment with resin (colored paint) and using a printing, painting, plating, or other method to apply the colored resin layer to the upper surface of the substrate (111; base) ([0048], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ito et al. further teaches that the transparent resin layer (113; second layer) may be made of a clear coat (first resin material), wherein examples of such clear coats include polyurethane resin paints, acrylic resin paints, silicone polyester resin paints, or the like [0049].
Regarding claim 6, Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Ito et al. further teaches that the dial (100; watch part) may be assembled in a watch body (10; watch) ([0068], Figs. 1, 5).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Ito et al. further teaches that the transparent resin layer (113; second layer) may be made of a clear coat (first resin material), wherein examples of such clear coats include polyurethane resin paints, acrylic resin paints, silicone polyester resin paints, or the like [0049]. Nakazawa et al. further teaches that the second light-transmissive layer (6; fourth layer) may be formed of an acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, or the like (second resin material) [0051]. Therefore, the combination of references discloses embodiments in which the first and second resin materials are the same (e.g., acrylic resin), or in which the first and second resin materials are different (e.g., polyurethane resin and epoxy resin).
Regarding claim 13, Ito et al. in view of Nakazawa et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Ito et al. further teaches that the thickness of the transparent resin layer (113; second layer) may be 1 to 200 µm, preferably 5 to 100 µm ([0050]), which falls within the claimed range.
Nakazawa et al. further teaches that the thickness of the first printed layer (5; third layer) is 0.1 µm or more and 10 µm or less ([0027]), which overlaps the claimed range. Nakazawa et al. further teaches that the thickness of the second light-transmissive layer (6; fourth layer) is 40 µm or more and 100 µm or less ([0052]), which overlaps the claimed range, wherein the second light-transmissive layer is shown in Fig. 6 as covering the dots constituting the pattern shapes (51) of the first printed layer (5).
Ito et al. and Nakazawa et al. therefore teach ranges for the thicknesses of the second, third, and fourth layers which overlap or fall within 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/REBECCA L GRUSBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights