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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariji et al in view of Black et al and Lin et al.
Ariji et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A method for making a crystal oscillator, comprising the steps of: a) forming a first electrode portion on a surface of a piezoelectric substrate, so as to obtain a semi- finished product (since such technique is well-known; see [0003, 0004]; see also Black et al; Figs. 6); b) thinning the piezoelectric substrate of the semi-finished product, so as to obtain an oscillating substrate, the oscillating substrate having a first surface on which the first electrode portion 124 is formed [0005]; c) forming a second electrode on a second surface of the oscillating substrate opposite to the first surface (see Fig. 2), the second electrode including a second electrode portion 134 in positional correspondence with the first electrode portion (see Figs. 1, 2, 3A) and a second extending electrode portion 135 extending outwardly from the second electrode portion and disposed on a periphery area of the oscillating substrate; d) forming a first extending electrode portion 123,that extends from the first electrode portion along a side surface 125 of the oscillating substrate to the second surface of the oscillating substrate, the first electrode portion and the first extending electrode portion124, 125, 123 cooperating to form a first electrode; and e) forming a support frame 130 on the second surface of the oscillating substrate (see Figs. 1, 2), the support frame made from a photoresist material (since it is well-known in the art that such procedure is used for leaving a desire pattern; see Figs. 10A, 9A, 8B), and surrounding the second electrode portion, at least a portion of the second extending electrode portion being located outside the support frame (see Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding the photoresist material choice,
Black et al, discloses, using a photoresist material for a support frame of a piezoelectric component [0075, 0083, 0084, 0085].
Moreover, it is reminded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such photoresist material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Lin et al is being cited for explicitly showing that having a plurality of electrodes on different surfaces is well-known in the art. For example,
Lin et al shows a first electrode 43 being located on a first surface, extending along a side and ending up on a second surface, on the same surface of second extended electrode 13 (see Figs. 1, 3).
Ariji et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 7, each of the first electrode portion, the first extending electrode portion, and the second electrode is independently made from gold, silver, aluminum, or combinations thereof (since no mention of such elements is disclose in the process of making the electrodes is made in the prior art).
Claim 8, the first electrode portion, the first extending electrode portion, and the second electrode are made from different materials. It is reminded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such different material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Black et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, after step a) and before step b), attaching the semi- finished product on a temporary substrate (sacrificial layer 602; see Fig. 6) with the first electrode portion facing the temporary substrate.
Claim 3, after step e), removing the temporary substrate from the first electrode portion on the first surface of the oscillating substrate (see step 616; Fig. 6)
Claim 4, the photoresist material is one of a positive photoresist and a negative photoresist [0084].
Claim 5, each of the first electrode portion and the second electrode is made from a conductive material, and the steps a) and c) are conducted by one of deposition process and printing process [0002, 0076].
Claim 6, the first extending electrode portion is made from a conductive material, and step d) is conducted by one of printing process and deposition process [0002, 0076].
Claim 10, said support frame has a thickness ranging from 10 micrometer to 100 micrometer [0083].
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 9, A crystal oscillator, comprising: an oscillating substrate having a first surface, a second surface opposite to said first surface, and a side surface interconnecting said first surface and said second surface; a first electrode including a first electrode portion disposed on said first surface of said oscillating substrate, and a first extending electrode portion extending from said first electrode portion on said first surface along said side surface to said second surface; a second electrode disposed on said second surface of said oscillating substrate, and including a second electrode portion and a second extending electrode portion extending from said second electrode portion toward said first extending electrode portion on said second surface, a projection of said second electrode portion on said second surface of said oscillating substrate partially overlapping a projection of said first electrode portion on said second surface of said oscillating substrate, said second extending electrode portion and said first extending electrode portion being located at a same side of said oscillating substrate; and a support frame made of a photoresist material and disposed on said second surface of said oscillating substrate, said support frame surrounding said second electrode portion, at least a portion of said second extending electrode portion located outside said support frame (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Claim 11, said second surface of said oscillating substrate includes at least one peripheral area that is located outside and exposed from said support frame, said first extending electrode portion and said second extending electrode portion located on said at least one peripheral area (see Ariji et al, Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 12, said support frame is formed as a ring structure, said second extending electrode portion extending from said second electrode portion, passing through a region defined between said support frame and said oscillating substrate, and terminating at said at least one peripheral area (see Ariji et al, Figs. 1, 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the method/oscillator as disclose by Ariji et al and to modify the invention per the limitation disclose by Black et al for the purpose of increasing the sensitivity of a MEMS device thus improving the display capabilities of display devices and to explicitly show having electrodes being placed on a same surface as disclose by Lin et al for the purpose of reducing short circuits between electrodes.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks mentioned that the Prior Art allegedly does not use any photoresist material in the system device. It is reminded that the claim language broadly discloses having a support frame made from a photoresist material.
The prior art, Black et al, discloses that at some point in the manufacturing process, the frame does contain a photoresist material (paragraph 0083). Thus, the support frame, at some point, is made from photoresist material. Whatever the material is later on removed or not, the Prior Art reads on the claim language as presented.
The claim language is not specific enough to differentiate between the Present Invention and the Prior Art.
It is further mentioned that using a photoresist material would have been easily used by someone having ordinary skill in the art since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (photoresist; in order to improve the etching, deposition or ion implantation process or leaving a precise pattern) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., thickness, width and location of the support frame can be precisely controlled through adjusting the parameters of the coating process and the patterned mask of the photolithography process so that the thickness of the crystal oscillator can be further controlled which enables the crystal oscillator to have the expected frequency; use a photoresist layer to form a frame so as to precisely control the thickness, width, shape and location of the support frame) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
December 30, 2025