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, 2, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momoo (JP 2012-134792) in view of Kanamaru et al (US 2015/0022060).
Momoo et al discloses, regarding
Claim 1, A vibrator device comprising: a base 41 having a first surface 40 and a second surface in a front-back relationship with each other (see Fig. 2); a circuit element 3 located at a first surface side of the base and having a third surface at the first surface side and a fourth surface in a front-back relationship with the third surface (see Fig. 2); a vibrator element 2 located at a fourth surface side of the circuit element (see Fig. 2); a first bonding member B1 disposed between the base and the circuit element 3 and configured to bond the base to the circuit element 3; a second bonding member B2 disposed between the circuit element 3 and the vibrator element 2 and configured to bond the circuit element to the vibrator element (see Fig. 2); and a lid 5 bonded to the base so as to form a cavity that accommodates the circuit element 3 and the vibrator element 2 between the lid 5 and the base (see Fig. 2).
It is noted that the first bonding member B1 and the second bonding member B2 appears to overlap each other in a plain view (see annotated Figs. 1, 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the newly added claim limitations, the first boding member B1 does not overlap a base through electrode 27 in the plan view (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
628
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The problem to be solve appears to explicitly show placing two bonding components in similar vertical direction (overlap each other in the vertical (plan view)).
Kanamaru et al shows explicitly a vibrator device having a base 130C, a circuit element 120, vibrator 110 and at least a part of the second bonding member 161 overlaps (overlaps in part) the first bonding member 161 (bottom bonding member 161; see Fig. 2B) in a plan view of the circuit element.
Momoo et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 5, A method for manufacturing a vibrator device including a base 41, a circuit element 3, a vibrator element 2, and a lid 5 bonded to the base 41 so as to form a cavity that accommodates the circuit element and the vibrator element between the lid and the base (see Fig. 2), the method comprising: preparing the base having a first surface and a second surface in a front-back relationship with each other (see Fig. 2); disposing a first bonding member B1 at the first surface of the base; disposing the circuit element 3 at a first surface side, the circuit element 3 having a third surface located at the first surface side and a fourth surface in a front-back relationship with the third surface (see Fig. 2); bonding the circuit element 3 to the base via the first bonding member B1; disposing a second bonding member B2 on the fourth surface of the circuit element 3; disposing the vibrator element 2 at a fourth surface side of the circuit element (see Fig. 2); bonding the vibrator element 2 to the circuit element 3 via the second bonding member B2; and forming the cavity that accommodates the circuit element 3 and the vibrator element 2 by bonding the lid to the base and the first bonding member does not overlap a base through electrode in the plan view (see rejection for claim 1 above).
The problem to be solve appears to explicitly show placing two bonding components in similar vertical direction (overlap each other in the vertical (plan view).
Kanamaru et al shows explicitly a vibrator device having a base 130C, a circuit element 120, vibrator 110 and at least a part of the second bonding member 161 overlaps (overlaps in part) the first bonding member 161 (bottom bonding member 161; see Fig. 2B) in a plan view of the circuit element.
Claim 6, A method for manufacturing a vibrator device including a base 41, a circuit element 3, a vibrator element 2, and a lid 5 bonded to the base 41 so as to form a cavity that accommodates the circuit element 3 and the vibrator element 2 between the lid and the base (see Fig. 2), the method comprising: preparing the base having a first surface and a second surface in a front-back relationship with each other (see Fig. 2); disposing a first bonding member B1 at the first surface of the base; disposing the circuit element 3 at a first surface side, the circuit element 3 having a third surface located at the first surface side and a fourth surface in a front-back relationship with the third surface (see Fig. 2); bonding the circuit element 3 to the base via the first bonding member B1; disposing a second bonding member B2 on the vibrator element 2; disposing the vibrator element 2 at a fourth surface side of the circuit element 3; bonding the vibrator element 2 to the circuit element 3 via the second bonding member B2; and forming the cavity that accommodates the circuit element and the vibrator element by bonding the lid to the base (see Fig. 2), base and the first bonding member does not overlap a base through electrode in the plan view (see rejection for claim 1 above).
The problem to be solve appears to explicitly show placing two bonding components in similar vertical direction (overlap each other in the vertical (plan view).
Kanamaru et al shows explicitly a vibrator device having a base 130C, a circuit element 120, vibrator 110 and at least a part of the second bonding member 161 overlaps (overlaps in part) the first bonding member 161 (bottom bonding member 161; see Fig. 2B) in a plan view of the circuit element.
Kanamaru et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the base includes a base electrode 133 on the first surface, the circuit element includes a first element electrode 122 on the third surface and a second element electrode 122 (top) on the fourth surface, the vibrator element 110 includes a coupling electrode 112, the first bonding member 161 is a first metal bump configured to electrically couple the base electrode 133 to the first element electrode 122, and the second bonding member 161 (top) is a second metal bump configured to electrically couple the second element electrode 122 (top) to the coupling electrode 112 (see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the vibrator device/method as disclosed by Momoo and to show explicitly the limitations pertaining to Kanamaru et al for the purpose of preventing unwanted stress in a vibrator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 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.
The cited prior art of record fails to disclose the element through electrodes interacting with the other electrodes and the base and the circuit element and also the placement of the first metal bump and second metal bump with regards to the base through electrode as specifically described in claims 3 and 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the remark that the prior art allegedly does not disclose that the first bonding member does not overlap a base through electrode, see annotated Fig. 1 above.
Regarding the remark pertaining to the plan view, in relation to the overlapping of the first and second bonding member, the annotated Fig. 1 above shows that “at least a part” (this could be any small part) of the second bonding member overlaps the first bonding member.
Regarding the identification of any “base through electrode”, it is noted that no structural description of such base through electrodes is given in the claims in order to differentiate such “based through electrode” from any other type of electrode. According to the claim language, a base through electrode could be any electrode.
It is reminded that the claims that made some mention of the base through electrodes, were claims 3 and 4 and such claims were objected.
The claim language is not specific enough to differentiate the present invention from the prior 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., electrodes penetrating through the base from a first surface to a second surface) 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
May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights