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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ermolov (US 2013/0234559).
Regarding claim 1, Ermolov discloses an excitation electrode 204 arranged on an outer surface (paragraph 34) of a quartz crystal blank (paragraph 34) and configured to apply an electrical field for exciting the quartz crystal blank to the quartz crystal blank (paragraph 34), the excitation electrode 204 comprising:
a single layer structure (paragraphs 25 and 32, and claim 19) formed of a two-dimensional layered substance (paragraph 25),
wherein the excitation electrode (paragraph 34) is arranged as a pair 204/208 to be used so as to be opposed to each other via the quartz crystal blank (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 6, Ermolov discloses the two- dimensional layered substance has a honeycomb structure having electrical conductivity (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 7, Ermolov discloses the two- dimensional layered substance has a mille-feuille structure having electrical conductivity (paragraphs 25 and 32).
Regarding claim 8, Ermolov discloses the two- dimensional layered substance is a substance exhibiting a metallic or half-metallic band gap structure (paragraphs 25 and 32).
Regarding claim 9, Ermolov discloses the two- dimensional layered substance is a substance exhibiting a metallic or half-metallic band gap structure (paragraphs 25 and 32).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermolov in view of Colli (US 2018/0367098).
Regarding claim 2, Ermolov further discloses that the excitation electrode comprises at least one layer of graphene (paragraphs 25 and 32), which may be a single or multiple layers of graphene (paragraph 32).
Ermolov does not expressly disclose that the two-dimensional layered substance is specifically a single layer film or a multilayer film of graphene including a carbon atom as a chief element.
Colli discloses that the two-dimensional layered substance can be a single layer or multilayer film of graphene including a carbon atom as a chief element (paragraph 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a single layer or multilayer film of graphene (including a carbon atom as a chief element) as disclosed by Colli in the device disclosed by Ermolov, for the purpose of achieving high conductivity, atomic thickness, and enhanced resonator performance.
Regarding claim 3, Ermolov does not disclose silicene, germanene, stanene, or plumbene.
Colli discloses the use of silicene, germanene, stanene, and plumbene as alternative two-dimensional layered substances for electrodes (paragraph 15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute silicene, germanene, stanene, or plumbene as the two-dimensional layered substance in Ermolov’s device, as taught by Colli, for the purpose of exploiting similar two-dimensional properties and tunable electronic characteristics.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermolov in view of Thomas (US 2020/0361775).
Regarding claim 4, Ermolov does not disclose the two- dimensional layered substance is doped with an impurity consisting of a group-XIII element or a group-XV element.
Thomas discloses the two- dimensional layered substance is doped with an impurity consisting of a group-XIII element or a group-XV element (paragraphs 45 and 46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the two- dimensional layered substance is doped with an impurity consisting of a group-XIII element or a group-XV element as disclosed by Thomas in the device disclosed by Ermolov, for the purpose of modifying the electrical, chemical, or structural properties of the graphene electrode, as such doping is a well-known and commonly used technique in the art for tailoring material properties.
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses the impurity is phosphorus or nitrogen (paragraph 46). The reason for combining is same as claim 4.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermolov in view of Arai (US 2004/0135471).
Regarding claim 10, Ermolov discloses a quartz crystal vibrator element comprising a quartz crystal blank (paragraphs 32 and 34) and an electrode film disposed on an outer surface of the quartz crystal blank, wherein the electrode film has a pair of excitation electrodes arranged on outer surfaces of the blank (paragraphs 25 and 32). The excitation electrodes are each formed of a single-layer or multilayer graphene film (paragraphs 25 and 32), and are disposed as a pair on opposite principal surfaces of the quartz crystal blank (paragraph 32). Ermolov also teaches that the electrodes are configured to apply an electrical field for exciting the quartz crystal blank (paragraph 34).
However, Ermolov does not expressly disclose that the quartz crystal blank has a pair of vibrating arm parts.
Arai discloses a quartz crystal blank having a pair of vibrating arm parts (paragraphs 26 and 27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the quartz crystal blank of Ermolov in the form of a blank with a pair of vibrating arm parts as taught by Arai, for the purpose of improving vibrational characteristics, frequency stability, and packaging efficiency, as such structures are well known in the art for quartz resonators.
Regarding claim 11, Arai discloses a package configured to airtightly seal the quartz crystal vibrator element (paragraphs 25). The reason for combining is same as above.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a sensor” in the preamble is merely an intended use and does not impose any structural limitations that differentiate the claimed device from the quartz crystal vibrator disclosed by Ermolov in view of Arai. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 13, Ermolov discloses an oscillator (paragraph 48) comprising: the quartz crystal vibrator according to Claim 11, wherein the quartz crystal vibrator is electrically coupled as an oscillator element to an integrated circuit (paragraph 48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akane (US 2003/0111935).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BUMSUK WON whose telephone number is (571)272-2713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Allana L Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872