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
Claims 13-14 and 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5 November 2025.
Applicant’s election of the invention of group 2 in the reply filed on 5 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Newly submitted claims 27-32 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: these claims correspond to the invention of group 1 and lack unity with the invention of group 2 for the same reasons cited in the restriction requirement.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 37-32 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 15, 16, 18-22, 25, 26, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara et al. (US 2017/0257077) in view of Branham (US 2003/0042823).
With respect to claim 15, Obara et al. discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator (Paragraph 17) comprising a cantilever-mounted (Fig 2A, wherein the mounting terminals 121 are both provided on the same side of the resonator) doubly rotated resonating element having a line of geometrical symmetry running from a supported end to a free end of the cantilever-mounted resonating element (Fig 2A).
Obara et al. does not disclose that an angle between the line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 44° to about 63°.
Branham teaches a quartz resonator in which an angle between the line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 44° to about 63° (Fig 4, Paragraph 10).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cut angle of Branham with the quartz resonator of Obara et al. for the benefit of reducing the effect of temperature on the resonator (Paragraph 10 of Branham).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a quartz resonator according to claim 15. Obara et al. discloses that the cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element is a two-point cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element (Fig 2A, wherein the mounting terminals 121 are both provided on corners of the same side of the resonator).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15. The language “that exhibits total acceleration sensitivity of an absolute value below 2 ppb/g” refers only to a desired goal of the invention and does not further limit the structural features of the claimed resonator.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15. The language “that exhibits total acceleration sensitivity of an absolute value below 1 ppb/g” refers only to a desired goal of the invention and does not further limit the structural features of the claimed resonator.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15. Branham discloses that the said resonator is a stress-compensated (SC) cut quartz crystal resonator and the cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element is a cantilever-mounted doubly rotated SC cut resonating element (Paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15. Obara et al. discloses a quartz crystal oscillator comprising a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator (Fig 2A, Paragraph 17).
With respect to claim 22, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a quartz crystal oscillator according to claim 21. Obara et al. discloses an electronic device comprising a quartz crystal oscillator (Fig 2A, Paragraph 17).
With respect to claim 25, Obara et al. discloses a doubly rotated resonating element suitable to construct a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator with reduced sensitivity to mechanical acceleration (Fig 2A and paragraph 17).
Obara et al. does not disclose that an angle between a line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 44° to about 63°.
Branham teaches a quartz resonator in which an angle between a line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 44° to about 63° (Fig 4, Paragraph 10).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cut angle of Branham with the quartz resonator of Obara et al. for the benefit of reducing the effect of temperature on the resonator (Paragraph 10 of Branham).
With respect to claim 26, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated resonating element according to claim 25. Branham discloses that the said doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator is a stress-compensated (SC) cut quartz crystal resonator and the doubly rotated resonating element is an SC cut resonating element (Paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 33, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15. Branham discloses that the angle between the line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 44° to about 62° in the range from about 46° to about 61°, or in the range from about 480 to about 63° (Paragraph 10).
With respect to claim 34, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated resonating element according to claim 25. Branham discloses that the angle between the line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 44° to about 62° in the range from about 46° to about 61°, or in the range from about 480 to about 63° (Paragraph 10).
With respect to claim 35, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15. Branham discloses that the angle between the line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 46° to about 61° (Paragraph 10).
With respect to claim 36, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated resonating element according to claim 25. Branham discloses that the angle between the line of the resonating element's geometrical symmetry and the crystallographic z axis is in the range from about 46° to about 61° (Paragraph 10).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara et al. in view of Branham and Arai et al. (US 2004/0135471).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Obara et al. and Branham discloses a doubly rotated quartz crystal resonator according to claim 15.
Obara et al. does not disclose that the cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element is a single-point cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element.
Arai et al. teaches a quartz resonator in which the cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element is a single-point cantilever-mounted doubly rotated resonating element (Figs 4A-4B, wherein the resonator is supported by a single point at item 8).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the single-point support of Arai et al. with the resonator of Obara et al. for the benefit of providing improved aging characteristics (Paragraph 12 of Arai et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Derek John Rosenau whose telephone number is (571)272-8932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am to 5:30 pm Central Time.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837