ETAILED 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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/14/2022. These drawings are approved.
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, 2, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (US 2019/0074812) in view of Ebina (JP 2019-165509).
Inoue et al discloses, regarding
Claim 1, A resonator, comprising: a vibration member that includes a base having a front end and a rear end that oppose each other and a plurality of vibration arms 135 that extend from the front end of the base and include at least one first vibration arm 135B and a pair of second vibration arms 135A, 135D disposed on both sides of the at least one first vibration arm (see Fig. 3); a frame disposed in at least part of a periphery of the vibration member (see Fig. 2); and a holding arm 111, 112 having a first end connected to the base and a second end connected to the frame, wherein the plurality of vibration arms each include a piezoelectric film F3, and a lower electrode E1 and an upper electrode E2 that face each other sandwiching the piezoelectric film (see Fig. 4), and wiring in the system [0067, 0068] wherein the plurality of vibration arms, the base, and the holding arm each have a movable region configured to vibrate in a predetermined vibration mode [0009, 0033, 0037, 0072, 0107, 0108].
However, Inoue et al does not disclose that the wiring connects the electrodes to the vibrating arms. However, such implementation is well-known in the field.
For example, Ebina discloses a connection wiring line 45 connects the respective upper electrodes 42, 44 of the pair of second vibration arms to each other (see Fig. 1), with the connection wiring line disposed in the movable region of at least one of the base and the holding arm (see Fig. 1).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 14, A resonator, comprising: a vibration member that includes a base and a plurality of vibration arms that extend in parallel from a side of the base, with plurality of vibration arms including at least one inner vibration arm and a pair of outer vibration arms disposed on respective sides of the at least one inner vibration arm (see Inoue et al, Figs. 2, 3, 9); a frame disposed around at least part of a periphery of the vibration member; a connection wiring line; and a holding arm that connects the base to the frame, wherein the plurality of vibration arms each include a piezoelectric film, and lower and upper electrodes that sandwich the piezoelectric film (see Inoue et al, Figs. 4, 9) wherein the plurality of vibration arms, the base, and the holding arm each have a movable region configured to vibrate in a predetermined vibration mode [0009, 0033, 0037, 0072, 0107, 0108], and wherein the connection wiring line connects the respective upper electrodes of the pair of outer vibration arms to each other, with the connection wiring line disposed in the movable region of at least one of the base and the holding arm (see Ebina, Fig. 1).
Claims 2, 15, an insulation layer 235 disposed on the upper electrode E2 of the at least one first vibration arm (see Inoue et al, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the resonator as disclose by Inoue et al and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Ebina for the purpose of improving the vertical vibrations of a resonator.
Claim(s) 3 – 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al and Ebina as applied to claims 1, 2, 14 above, and further in view of Yoshii et al (US 2019/0097600).
The combined resonator discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined resonator does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Yoshii et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, the connection wiring line is disposed on the insulation layer that is laminated on the upper electrode of the at least one first vibration arm (see Fig. 5).
Claim 4, the holding arm includes two connection portions that are connected to the base, and wherein the connection wiring line is disposed at a position adjacent to the two connection portions (see Fig. 3).
Claim 5, the holding arm includes three or more connection portions connected to the base, and wherein the connection wiring line is disposed at a position adjacent to the three or more connection portions (see Fig. 7).
Claims 6, 16, the upper electrode comprises a metal layer having a first region that extends from a tip end of a first arm of the pair of second vibration arms, a second region that extends from a tip end of a second arm of the pair of second vibration arms, and a third region that extends from a tip end of the at least one first vibration arm (see Figs. 3, 4).
Claim 7, a first clearance is disposed between the first region and the third region and a second clearance is disposed between the second region and the third region (see Fig. 3).
Claim 8, a recess is provided in an end surface of the third region to route a wiring line from a frame to at least the first region (see Figs. 2, 10).
Claims 9, 17, the connection wiring line connects the first region of the metal layer to the second region of the metal layer (see Figs. 3, 7, 8).
Claim 12, an upper lid and a lower lid disposed to face each other and sandwich the resonator; and an outer electrode configured to apply a voltage to the upper and lower electrodes (see Figs. 5, 3).
Claims 13, 20, the connection wiring line extends in a lengthwise direction of the base of the vibration member and overlaps the vibration member in a plan view thereof (see Fig. 3).
Claim 19, the insulation layer is sandwiched between the connection wiring line and the third region of the metal layer (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator as disclose above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclose by Yoshii et al for the purpose of reducing unwanted frequency oscillation of a resonator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, with respect to the drawing objection are persuasive. The drawing objection with respect to the figures has been withdrawn.
The figures have been approved.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that the Prior art allegedly fails to disclose having a plurality of arms, base, holding arm, each having a movable region configured to vibrate in a predetermined vibration mode, it is noted that the “vibration mode” is very vague and broad. Any vibration (or any movement) under the sun can be considered a vibration mode, according to claim 1, since it is not clear what is the actual mode of vibration or how the vibration mode is different from each other (e.g., vibration mode of arm vs. vibration mode of base). A movable region can be any region in which there is any type of movement. The claim does not describe in any way, what is the region.
According to claim 1, any type of vibration can be considered a vibration mode.
As well-known, the vibration arm, base, and holding arm will have some type of vibration at some point in time. It is only expected that a region in any of the components will vibrate in some vibration mode.
The claim language is extremely broad, thus the Prior Art still reads on the claim language as presented.
Moreover, Inoue et al teaches that it is known for some of the components like the vibration arm, base, holding components to have a predetermined vibration (see paragraphs 0009, 0033, 0037, 0072, 0107, 0108).
Ebina also teaches that some of the components like the base and arm have a predetermined vibration mode; see spec related to Fig. 1, 3D, 5).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Inoue et al shows that the device has movable regions (vibrating, movable region; see Fig. 3).
It is also reminded that the base will move at some point whenever the whole device (resonator) is moved or vibrates. The claim language is too broad.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both, Inoue et al and Ebina are in the same field of endeavor. Thus, the teachings of both prior art would have been easily recognized by someone ordinary skill in the art.
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., paragraph description as mentioned in paragraphs 0052, 0064, 0072 of the specifications) 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
January 13, 2026