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(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the - imaginary lines as disclosed in claims 4, 5; - outer shape positions and outer shape centers as disclosed in claims 4, 5; - beam part coupling the base fixation part to the element support part as disclose in claim 7; 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.
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 1 – 8 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 1, the statement “thin-wall portion” is indefinite. It is not clear what would be the portion and what would be considered “thin”. The statement using the words “thin” and “portion” is very vague. It would seem that anything would be considered a “portion” (e.g., any part of the device) and “thin” is a very broad relative terminology that renders the statement indefinite. What is the “thin” thickness being compared to?
In claim 2, it seems that the thin-wall portion is an empty space (cutout part) and yet it is inside in the thickness direction. Clarification is required.
In claims 4, 5, the statement “imaginary line” is indefinite. It is not clear where this imaginary line would be located. Also, it is not clear what are the outer shape positions and outer shape centers.
In order to advance prosecution in the merits, the Prior Art will be applied
as best understood by the examiner.
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 – 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al (US 2020/0284815) in view of Nishizawa et al (US 2020/0292314).
Ogura et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A vibrator device comprising: a base 21; a vibrator element 6; a support substrate 4 configured to support the vibrator element (see Fig. 1); and at least three bonding members B1 (see Fig. 2) which are arranged on the support substrate at a distance from each other (see Figs. 1, 2), and which are configured to bond the support substrate 4 and the base 21 to each other (see Fig. 1), wherein the support substrate has a thin-wall portion (element 412; see Fig. 2), and the thin-wall portion is arranged between a pair of the bonding members B1 adjacent to each other at a distance smaller than a distance between another pair of the bonding members adjacent to each other (since element 412 is in between bonding members B1, thus the distance is smaller from element 412 to bonding member B1; see Fig. 2).
Due to the unclear claim language, Nishizawa et al is being cited due to the possibility that the thin-wall portion could be an empty space or a narrower portion (thin portion of any part of the device). In that respect, Nishizawa et al shows a vibrator element 6, substrate 4, base 21 and thin-wall portion (empty space) between bonding members B1, B2, B3 (see Figs. 9, 10). It is noted that there are other thin-wall portions 44, 33, that are located in between bonding members B3 at a distance smaller than a distance between another pair of bonding members adjacent to each other (see Fig. 9).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the thin-wall portion is a cutout part penetrating in a thickness direction (Nishizawa et al, Fig. 9).
Claim 3, the thin-wall portion is formed in an area from an outer shape end of the support substrate toward an inside of the support substrate (Nishizawa et al, Fig. 9; empty space).
Claim 4, the thin-wall portion is formed beyond a first imaginary line connecting outer shape positions of the two bonding members to each other, the outer shape positions being located at an inner side as an opposite side to an outer shape side of the support substrate (Nishizawa et al, Fig. 9).
Claim 5, the thin-wall portion is formed beyond a second imaginary line connecting outer shape centers of the two bonding members to each other (Nishizawa et al, Fig. 9).
Claim 6, the support substrate includes a base fixation part in which the bonding members are arranged, an element support part configured to support the vibrator element, and a beam part configured to couple the base fixation part and the element support part to each other (Ogura et al, Figs. 1, 6; Nishizawa et al, Fig. 9).
Claim 7, the support substrate includes a base fixation part in which the bonding members are arranged, an element support part configured to support the vibrator element, and a beam part configured to couple the base fixation part and the element support part to each other (Nishizawa et al, Figs. 9, 10, 11), and the thin-wall portion is formed in an area from an inner end of the base fixation part toward an outer shape end of the support substrate (Nishizawa et al, Fig. 1, 9; empty spaces).
Claim 8, the bonding members are electrically-conductive bonding members (Ogura et al, Figs. 1, [0037]) configured to electrically couple the support substrate and the base to each other.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Ogura et al and to show the limitations pertaining to Nishizawa et al for the purpose of improving the vibrating characteristics of a vibrator.
Conclusion
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 7, 2026