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 6 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JP 2020-141358) in view of Tsuchido (JP 2006-254210).
Fujiwara discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A suspended resonator, comprising: a vibration structure (Figs. 3, 4 and description in specs related to such figures), comprising: a vibration region, comprising: a plate portion 22c, comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (see Figs. 8, 9), a central part, and an edge part (see Fig. 8); and a thickening portion 22d, surrounding the central part of the plate portion (see Fig. 8), wherein the edge part of the plate portion is sandwiched in the thickening portion (since the plate portion is inside; “sandwiched” in the X plane by the thickness portion) and a thickness of the thickening portion is greater than a thickness of the plate portion (see Fig. 8); a frame portion 23, surrounding the vibration region and maintaining a gap with the vibration region (see Fig. 8); and a connecting portion 24, connecting the thickening portion 22d with the frame portion 23; a first electrode 221, disposed on the first surface (see Fig. 4); and a second electrode 222, disposed on the second surface (see Fig. 5).
Tsuchido is being cited for explicitly showing that it is known to have an edge part of a plate portion 22 of a vibrator being sandwiched in a thickening portion 54, 58 (see Fig. 2).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 6, a material of the vibration structure is a piezoelectric material (Fujiwara, abstract).
Claim 7, a base; a first sealing ring, disposed on the base, wherein the vibration structure is disposed on the first sealing ring; a second sealing ring, disposed on the vibration structure; and an upper cover, disposed on the second sealing ring (Fujiwara, Fig. 1; Tsuchido, Fig. 1).
Claim 8, a plurality of pads 10 (Tsuchido, Fig. 3), disposed under the base and electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode respectively (Tsuchido, Fig. 3).
Claim 9, a thickness of the connecting portion is greater than a thickness of the plate portion (Fujiwara, Fig. 8; Tsuchido, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the resonator as disclosed by Fujiwara and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Tsuchido for the purpose of preventing brazing material being stuck on the vibrating area, thus improving the vibration characteristics of a resonator.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara and Tsuchido as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al (US 2018/0048284).
The combined resonator discloses all of the elements above. However, the combined resonator does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Nakamura et al discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the connecting portion comprises two connecting sections respectively connected to two opposite sides of the vibration region (see Fig. 2, extending L-shape portions on opposite sides of the central vibrating region; see also Fujiwara, Fig. 8, 5).
Claim 3, a connecting line of the two connecting sections deviates from a center of the vibration region (since the L-shape deviates from the central region; see Fig. 2).
Claim 4, a protrusion height of the thickening portion relative to the first surface is H, a length of the vibration region in an arrangement direction of the two connecting sections is L, and the suspended resonator meets
PNG
media_image1.png
11
95
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 (ranges from the thickening portions height) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator as disclosed above and to modify the invention per the limitations disclosed by Nakamura et al for the purpose of decreasing the resonance resistance of a resonator, thus improve the resonator vibrations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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 structural description of the connecting sections as specifically described in the claim.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
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 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights