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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The figures fail to illustrate/show how the blank area is compared with the package area (e.g. dimensions of the package with respect to the dimensions of the blank).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
- the crystal unit as disclosed in claim 4;
- the oscillator circuit as disclosed in claim 5; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the area of a flat surface of a mounted surface of a blank with respect to an area of a flat surface of the package (percentage comparison of the blank with the package) as specifically described in claims 1 and 2 and in paragraphs 0049 in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, “first pattern portions” and “second pattern portions” are disclosed. It is not clear what are the patterns and what encompassed a “portion” of a pattern.
It would seem that a portion of a pattern could be anything inside the package or any other surface area that would have a pattern or any portion. It is not clear what would be considered a “portion”.
In claim 4, a crystal unit is disclosed. It is not clear if the unit is the quartz crystal or if the unit pertains to another different device.
It is not clear the difference between the quartz crystal and the crystal unit.
In claim 5, a crystal oscillator is disclosed. However, it is not clear what would be considered “the circuit” or if the quartz crystal would be the actual crystal oscillator or the oscillator circuit or if the circuit pertains to another device (e.g., IC circuit).
It is not clear the relationship between the quartz crystal and the oscillator circuit and the crystal oscillator.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alhayek et al (US 2004/0070462).
Alhayek et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A quartz crystal device comprising a package 20; and a crystal blank 70 mounted inside the package (see Fig. 1), wherein an area of a flat surface of a mounted surface of the blank 70 is 10% or more and 30% or less with respect to an area of a flat surface specified by a width and a depth of the package 20 (since it is disclosed that the surface area of the package is 8 sq. mm and the surface area of the blank is 1.88 sq. mm; paragraph 0037).
1.88 / 8 = .235
0.235 x 100% = 23.5 %
The 23.5% comparison of the blank area with respect to the package area falls within the disclosed range as mentioned in claim 1.
Claim 4, A crystal unit (Fig. 2) comprising the quartz crystal (see paragraph 0032) device according to claim 1.
Claim 5, A crystal oscillator (Fig. 1) comprising an oscillator circuit (see paragraphs 0030, 0041, 0040, 0039) that amplifies an oscillation frequency (paragraphs 0039, 0040); and the quartz crystal device according to claim 1.
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, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alhayek et al in view of Saitoh (US 2021/0105000).
Alhayek et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the area of the flat surface of the mounted surface of the blank is 13% or more and 18% or less with respect to the area of the flat surface specified by the width and the depth of the package; since it is disclosed that different scenarios can be used in which the package area has different dimension and the area of the blank has different dimensions (see Table in paragraph 0037).
Taking into consideration the different scenarios. If the area of the blank (1.88 sq. mm) and the area of the package (16 sq. mm) is used, it yields a comparison percentage of 12 %.
Also, if the area of the blank (6.68 sq. mm) is compared with the area of the package (35 sq. mm), it yields a 19 % comparison. Both values are extremely closed to the values mentioned in the claims.
Thus, based on the Prior Art, finding a range between 13% to 18% would have been easily achievable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to come with those optimum ranges that the applicant discloses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and it also has been held that discovering the optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Due to the unclear claim language, Saitoh is being cited for showing,
Claim 3, a pedestal 6 to which the blank 3 is mounted (see Fig. 4); and first pattern portions (see Figs. 2, 4; bottom surface of package) disposed on four corners of an inner flat surface of the package and second pattern portions 35 on the inner flat surface of the package, wherein the second pattern portions 35 are connected to the first pattern portions (since the portions 35 are connected to the bottom surface), and extend toward a center of the inner flat surface, and the pedestal 3 is mounted on the second pattern portions 35 (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the crystal device as disclosed by Alhayek et al and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Saitoh for the purpose of providing a crystal unit that efficiently suppresses external vibrations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Isimaru discloses a quarz crystal having package, blank and the relationship of the area of the package with respect to the blank also falls within the disclose parameters as mentioned in the claims (see Isimaru; Figs. 1B, 2A, 3C).
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 18, 2025