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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 are now pending in this application and an OA on the merits of claims 1-7 as bellowing:
Claim Objections
Claims 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“is formed” (claim 4, line 3, and claim 5, line 3) is not positive active method limitations and should be updated to start with terms/phrase: “forming a third protective film . . .” is suggested.
The phrase:” includes not forming either” (claim 6, line 3) should be updated to: --" without” --, for clarity if the method clam formats.
“left at” (claim 7, line 3) should be updated to: -- “still on” --, for clarity of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamazaki (JP 2010183208), or in an alternatively, Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Kobayashi (JP2007013382).
Yamazaki discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a vibration element including, comprising:
forming a first vibrating arm 3 and a second vibrating arm 3 (opposing to first arm 3) that extend along a first direction and are arranged side by side along a second direction intersecting the first direction, wherein the first and second vibrating arms each have a first surface and a second surface arranged side by side in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction in a front and back relationship and a bottomed groove opening to the first surface (see Fig. 2, which depicts such above features, see also ¶¶ [0038-0040]),
wherein the forming of the first and second vibrating arms includes:
preparing a quartz crystal substrate 20 having a first substrate surface and a second substrate surface in a front and back relationship (see Figs. 1-2, especially Fig. 1A);
forming a first protective film 26 at the first substrate surface in a region excluding a groove forming region where the bottomed grooves are to be formed from a first vibrating arm forming region where the first vibrating arm is to be formed and a second vibrating arm forming region where the second vibrating arm is to be formed (see Figs.1F-1H);
conducting a first dry-etching of the quartz crystal substrate from a first substrate surface side via the first protective film to form the bottomed grooves 25 and portions of the outer shapes of the first and second vibrating arms (see Figs 1F-1L);
forming a second protective film 27 in the bottomed grooves 25 formed during the first dry -etching (see Figs. 1I-1M), respectively; and
conducting a second dry-etching of the quartz crystal substrate from the first substrate surface side via the second protective film to form the first surface and the remaining portions of the outer shapes of the first and second vibrating arms (see Figs. 1M-1N), respectively.
Therefore, the above limitation of claim 1 is met by the Yamazaki in light of the discussion set forth above since wet and/or dry etching is welly known process in the area of fabricating of vibration fork device.
If it is argued that the Yamazaki does not teach the dry etching process then Applicants refer to Kobayashi (see under the solution and/or ¶¶ [0033-0031] of the translation provided by Applicants see IDS filed on 10/27/22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the dry etching as taught by the Kobayashi onto the invention of Yamazaki for various known benefits including improving of productivity and the high accuracy of the resonance frequency can be obtained. The motivation for the combination references above can be found in either reference since both are in same endeavor field of invention (see ¶ [0011] of the Kobayashi.
As applied to claim 2, regarding to where "at least one of the first protective film and the second protective film is a resin film". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the protective film as a resin film since resin film is selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and/or dielectric properties.
As applied to claim 3, regarding to where "at least one of the first protective film and the second protective film is a metal film". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the protective film as a resin film since resin film is selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and/or dielectric properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
5/11/26
Prosecution Insights