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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/16/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-6 and 12 has/have been amended; claim(s) 10-11 has/have been cancelled and new claim(s) 13 has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-9 and 12-13 are presently pending in this application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasagawa et al (JP 2010044936) in view of Satoh et al (US 20060132251).
Regarding claim 1, Sasagawa discloses an oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator comprising: a thin-film heater including an insulated substrate (Fig. 1 #2 substrate) and metal wiring (Fig. 1 #4 electrothermal layer) patterned thereon to extend between both terminals of the metal wiring; wherein in the thin-film heater, the metal wiring has a resistance of 10 Q or less between the terminals (Page 12 para 5 ---" In the case of the Au bulk material, R (0) = 2.05 × 10 .sup.−8 Ωm, and the thermistor / electric heater 1 and the Au bulk material have close R (0) values.”), and the metal wiring comprises a heat-generating layer made of a material that recrystallizes at a temperature of 200ºC or lower (The Fig. 1 #4 electrothermal layer is made of gold. Gold is known to exhibit the behavior as claimed.).
However, Sasagawa does not disclose a resonator; an oscillator IC combined with the resonator to configure an oscillator; and a heater IC for controlling the thin-film heater, and the oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator further comprises a core in which the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on a core substrate.
Nonetheless, Satoh in the same field of endeavor being piezo-oscillators with heaters teaches a resonator (Fig. 5 #22 SC-cut quartz crystal resonator);
an oscillator IC (Fig. 5 #23 electronic parts) combined with the resonator (Fig. 5 #22 SC-cut quartz crystal resonator) to configure an oscillator;
and a heater IC for controlling the thin-film heater ([0008] lines 12-16 ---" Voltage application to the terminal 27 causes a current flow through the heater 26, and the thermo-sensitive device and a control circuit operate to keep the temperature of the constant temperature oven 25 at a fixed value.”), and the oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator further comprises a core (Fig. 5 #21 printed board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a resonator, an oscillator IC, a heater IC, and a core, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
However, Sasagawa in view of Satoh does not teach a core in which the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on a core substrate.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater on a core, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 2, Sasagawa discloses an oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator comprising: a thin-film heater including an insulated substrate (Fig. 1 #2 substrate) and metal wiring (Fig. 1 #4 electrothermal layer) patterned thereon to extend between both terminals of the metal wiring; wherein in the thin-film heater, the metal wiring has a resistance of 10 Q or less between the terminals (Page 12 para 5 ---" In the case of the Au bulk material, R (0) = 2.05 × 10 .sup.−8 Ωm, and the thermistor / electric heater 1 and the Au bulk material have close R (0) values.”).
However, Sasagawa does not disclose a resonator; an oscillator IC combined with the resonator to configure an oscillator; and a heater IC for controlling the thin-film heater, and the oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator further comprises a core in which the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on a core substrate.
Nonetheless, Satoh in the same field of endeavor being piezo-oscillators with heaters teaches a resonator (Fig. 5 #22 SC-cut quartz crystal resonator);
an oscillator IC (Fig. 5 #23 electronic parts) combined with the resonator (Fig. 5 #22 SC-cut quartz crystal resonator) to configure an oscillator;
and a heater IC for controlling the thin-film heater ([0008] lines 12-16 ---" Voltage application to the terminal 27 causes a current flow through the heater 26, and the thermo-sensitive device and a control circuit operate to keep the temperature of the constant temperature oven 25 at a fixed value.”), and the oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator further comprises a core (Fig. 5 #21 printed board).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a resonator, an oscillator IC, a heater IC, and a core, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
However, Sasagawa in view of Satoh does not teach a core in which the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on a core substrate.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater on a core, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 3, Sasagawa in view of Satoh teaches the oscillator as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sasagawa teaches wherein a material for the heat-generating layer is selected from the group consisting of gold (Au) (Page 5 para 7 ---"The electrothermal layer 4 is made of gold (Au).”), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), and copper (Cu).
Regarding claim 4, Sasagawa in view of Satoh teaches the oscillator as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sasagawa teaches wherein the insulated substrate comprises quartz or glass (Page 5 para 4 ---" The substrate 2 is preferably made of quartz glass or sapphire.”), and the metal wiring comprises an underlayer (Fig. 1 #3 base layer) formed between the insulated substrate and the heat-generating layer.
Regarding claim 12, Sasagawa in view of Satoh teaches the oscillator as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Satoh teaches wherein the core (Fig. 5 #21 printed board) is hermetically encapsulated in an insulation package ([0008] lines 11-12 ---"The base 28 is covered with a case 29, their joints being sealed by soldering or the like.”).
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 oscillator of Sasagawa in view of Satoh to incorporate the hermetically sealed insulation package as taught by Satoh for the benefit of protecting the oscillator from environmental damage.
However, Sasagawa in view of Satoh does not teach in the core, the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on the core substrate having a flat plate shape, sequentially from a side of the core substrate.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater on a core, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 13, Sasagawa in view of Satoh teaches the oscillator as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Satoh teaches wherein the core (Fig. 5 #21 printed board) is hermetically encapsulated in an insulation package ([0008] lines 11-12 ---"The base 28 is covered with a case 29, their joints being sealed by soldering or the like.”).
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 oscillator of Sasagawa in view of Satoh to incorporate the hermetically sealed insulation package as taught by Satoh for the benefit of protecting the oscillator from environmental damage.
However, Sasagawa in view of Satoh does not teach in the core, the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on the core substrate having a flat plate shape, sequentially from a side of the core substrate.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater on a core, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasagawa et al (JP 2010044936) in view of Satoh et al (US 20060132251)as applied to claim 4, further in view of Takase et al (JP H06283261).
Regarding claim 5, Sasagawa in view of Satoh teaches the heater as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sasagawa teaches wherein the heat-generating layer has a film thickness of 30 nm or more (Page 12 para 6 ---" In the thermistor and electric heater 1 shown in FIG. 1, the thickness of the underlayer 3 made of metallic molybdenum was 50 nm, and the thickness of the electrothermal layer 4 made of gold was 200 nm.”).
However, Sasagawa in view of Satoh does not teach the underlayer has a film thickness of 10 nm or less.
Nonetheless, Takase teaches the underlayer has a film thickness of 10 nm or less ([007] ---" A method for producing a transparent planar heater, wherein the metal underlayer has a thickness of 0.5 nm to 20 nm, or the wet plating method is an electroplating method.”).
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 heater of Sasagawa in view of Satoh by incorporating the thickness of the underlayer as taught by Takase for the benefit of maintaining the evenness of the electrodes during manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are allowed.
The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest preheating the insulated substrate to 200ºC or higher, and depositing a metal film made of a material that recrystallizes at a temperature of 200ºC or lower, on the preheated insulated substrate that is heated to 200ºC or higher by a vacuum vapor deposition method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of obviousness rational from MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Applicant argues that Sasagawa fails to disclose at least "the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater are stacked on a core substrate." Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrange the heater IC, the resonator, the oscillator IC, and the thin-film heater on the core substrate in numerous different configurations, since Applicant does not specify any added benefit or reason why the claimed configuration is necessary for the oven-controlled piezoelectric oscillator for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761