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 of Group I in the reply filed on 06 April 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojo (PG Pub 20180191303) and in view of Onitsuka (PG Pub 20110050046).
Considering claim 1, Kojo (Figure 1) teaches a resonator device comprising: an element substrate (2 + paragraph 0035) including a frame part (27 + paragraph 0095) having a first surface and a second surface in a front-back relationship with each other, and a resonator element (paragraph 0035) which is coupled to the frame part, and is arranged inside the frame part; a first substrate (4 + paragraph 0035) which is arranged at the first surface side, and has a third surface faced to the first surface; a first bonding layer (14 + paragraph 0062) which is arranged between the element substrate (2) and the first substrate (4), and which is configured to bond the first surface and the third surface to each other; a second substrate (3 + paragraph 0035) which is arranged at the second surface side, and has a fourth surface faced to the second surface; a second bonding layer (14 + paragraph 0062) which is arranged between the element substrate and the second substrate, and which is configured to bond the second surface and the fourth surface to each other (paragraph 0062); a housing part (13 + 12 + paragraph 0036) which is surrounded by the frame part, the first substrate, and the second substrate, and which is configured to house the resonator element.
However, Kojo does not teach a getter layer which is arranged on the fourth surface, exposed to the housing part, and has a gas absorptive property.
Onitsuka (Figure 11) teaches a getter layer (27 + paragraph 0082) which is arranged on the fourth surface, exposed to the housing part, and has a gas absorptive property (paragraph 0082).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a getter layer which is arranged on the fourth surface, exposed to the housing part, and has a gas absorptive property into Kojo’s device for the benefit of reducing the amount of gas produced with laser irradiation.
Considering claim 2, Onitsuka (Figure 11) teaches wherein the second bonding layer (27 + paragraph 0082) has a substrate-side second bonding layer arranged in an entire area on the fourth surface and a portion of the substrate-side second bonding layer exposed to the housing part functions as the getter layer (27 + paragraph 0082).
Considering claim 3, Kojo teaches wherein the substrate-side second bonding layer has a Ti layer (paragraph 0055).
Considering claim 4, Kojo teaches wherein the substrate-side second bonding layer has an Au layer arranged on the Ti layer (paragraph 0055).
Considering claim 6, Kojo (Figure 1) teaches a wiring layer (71 + paragraph 0058) which is arranged on the third surface, and which is electrically coupled to the resonator element, the first bonding layer (14 + paragraph 0062) has a substrate-side first bonding layer arranged on the third surface and the substrate-side first bonding layer and the wiring layer are same in configuration (see Figure 1).
Considering claim 7, Kojo (Figure 1) discloses the claimed invention except for a surface roughness of the first surface, second surface, the third surface and the fourth surface is set no higher than 5 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a surface roughness of the first surface, second surface, the third surface and the fourth surface is set no higher than 5 nm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojo (PG Pub 20180191303), in view of Onitsuka (PG Pub 20110050046) and in view of Fujii (PG Pub 20220123716).
Considering claim 5, Kojo and in view of Onitsuka teaches a thickness of the Au layer as described above.
However, Kojo and in view of Onitsuka does not teach wherein a thickness of the Au layer is no larger than 100 nm.
Fujii (Figure 2) teaches wherein a thickness of the Au layer is no larger than 100 nm (62 + paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date to include a thickness of the Au layer is no larger than 100 nm into Kojo’s device for the benefit of being within the level or ordinary skill in the art based on obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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, Dedei K Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/BRYAN P GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights