Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/287,204

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CURVED SURFACE SUPPORT STRUCTURE, AND HEMISPHERICAL RESONATOR GYROSCOPE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 17, 2023
Examiner
WIEGAND, TYLER J
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tokyo Keiki Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
59 granted / 78 resolved
+7.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 78 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in Japan on 04/23/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2023 and 10/31/2023 has/have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file. Claim Interpretation Claim 7 is interpreted by the examiner as a product-by-process claim (MPEP 2113). The preamble of the claim recites “A hemispherical resonator gyroscope manufactured from an upper wafer and a lower wafer by a method comprising: . . .” then goes on to recite extensive method steps in the remainder of the claim. As stated in MPEP 2113.I, "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." While the final structure implied by the process steps is considered, claim 7 will be considered as anticipated and/or obvious if the prior art is found to recite an equivalent structure to that which is implied, even if that structure is made by a different method. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim(s) 1-16 is/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. The term “generally” as it is used in claims 1 (line 4) and 7 (line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term generally is defined (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary) as “in a general manner: such as . . . in disregard of specific instances and with regard to an overall picture”. It is therefore unclear what specific instance of a stem/tip located at a “generally center of the annular recess” would read and/or infringe on the recited claim limitation. For example, the phrase “generally center” could require the stem/tip to be located within a certain distance of the geometric center (nanometers, micrometers, etc.) of the recess, or it could require at least a portion of the stem/tip be located at the geometric center even if the entirety of the stem/tip is not geometrically centered. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least for their dependencies on claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, any stem/tip which is not directly on the edge of the surface will be interpreted as being at a “generally center” of the recess. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0016742 A1; 01/2017; (“Shkel”). Regarding Claim 7. Shkel discloses A hemispherical resonator gyroscope manufactured from an upper wafer and a lower wafer by a method (Figures 11A-11E, [0052], method of forming a mushroom resonator and Figure 13 shows a top down view of the electrode configuration according to [0053]) comprising: forming an annular recess on an upper surface of the lower wafer by etching (Figure 11E, annular recess on the upper surface of fused silica wafer #42, wrapping around stem #14, has a ring/annular shape in Figure 13, etching not required per claim interpretation above), and a stem having a tip higher than a radially-outer-surface at a generally center of the annular recess by etching the radially-outer-surface (Figure 11E, the stem #14 is located at a center of the recess on the top of #14 and has an upper surface which is higher than the outer radial surface where #44s are located, etching not required per claim interpretation above), wherein the radially-outer-surface is a plane located at a radially outer side of the annular recess (Figures 11E and 13, the radial outer surface where #44s are located is a radially outer surface at an outer edge of the recess surrounding stem #14); forming a plurality of first electrodes arranged on the radially-outer-surface (#44, Figure 11E, electrodes on the radial outer surface of #42); forming a sacrificial layer (Figure 11D, #46, sacrificial layer), which is an annular deposition pattern on the plurality of first electrodes (Figure 11E, the shape and deposition method of the sacrificial layer does not imply any details about the final structure and is not required per claim interpretation above, as it is subsequently removed, beyond resulting in a gap between electrodes which is observed in the figure between #42 and #40); forming a plurality of second electrodes, which are arranged on a bottom surface of the upper wafer in correspondence with the plurality of first electrodes (#40, Figure 11E, metallized layer which comprises a plurality of individual out of plane electrodes ([0107]) on the edge bottom regions of the wineglass structure #24 to correspond to the underlying #44s); bonding the upper wafer and the lower wafer with the sacrificial layer in between so that the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes are superimposed (Figures 11E-11D, #42 and #24 are bonded at the stem #14, with the sacrificial layer #46 between them, so that the upper and lower electrodes at the edge regions of the device are at least partially superimposed); separating a radially outer portion, which is located at a radially outer side of the upper wafer relative to the plurality of second electrodes by etching after the bonding (Figures 11D-11E, the wax portion #38 of the upper substrate is removed after the two structures are bonded to one another, etching not required per claim interpretation above); vacuum heating the upper wafer, the lower wafer, and the sacrificial layer under a condition where a pressure in a cavity defined by the upper wafer, the lower wafer, and the sacrificial layer is different from an ambient pressure after the separating (Figures 11A-11E, this is interpreted by the examiner as creating a wine glass or rounded shape to the cavity of the final device; when this process takes place and the method by which it is performed is not required as described in the claim interpretation above, the cavity of the gyroscope between #24 and #42 is observed to have a rounded shape even though the glass blowing process, or vacuum heating, took place earlier in the process, see Figures 11A-11B and [0102]); and removing the sacrificial layer by etching after the vacuum heating at the pressure different from the ambient pressure (Figures 11D-11E, #46 is removed in the final device and the order of occurrence is not interpreted as providing a structure which is different from that of the prior art). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6 and 8-16 currently stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for the reasons described above. However, claim 1 is interpreted to include potentially allowable subject matter and may be allowable pending applicant’s ability to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Claims 2-6 and 8-16 would be allowable at least for their dependencies, depending again on how the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is resolved. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited prior art, either alone or in combination, discloses “vacuum heating the upper wafer, the lower wafer, and the sacrificial layer are under a condition where a pressure in a cavity defined by the upper wafer, the lower wafer, and the sacrificial layer is different from an ambient pressure after the separating; and removing the sacrificial layer by etching after the vacuum heating at the pressure different from the ambient pressure”, which further takes place after the bonding as required by the claim, and in combination with all of the other required limitations of the claim. Regarding Claim 1. US 2017/0016742 A1; 01/2017; (“Shkel”), the closest identified prior art, discloses A method for manufacturing a curved surface supported structure comprising an upper wafer and a lower wafer (Figures 11A-11E, [0052], method of forming a mushroom resonator and Figure 13 shows a top down view of the electrode configuration according to [0053]), the method comprising: forming an annular recess on an upper surface of the lower wafer by etching (Figure 11E, annular recess on the upper surface of fused silica wafer #42, wrapping around stem #14, has a ring/annular shape in Figure 13, [0020] and [0081] disclose that etching may be used to form the recess structure, or substrate cavity), and a stem having a tip higher than a radially-outer-surface at a generally center of the annular recess by etching the radially-outer-surface (Figure 11E, the stem #14 is located at a center of the recess on the top of #14 and has an upper surface which is higher than the outer radial surface where #44s are located), wherein the radially-outer-surface is a plane located at a radially outer side of the annular recess (Figures 11E and 13, the radial outer surface where #44s are located is a radially outer surface at an outer edge of the recess surrounding stem #14); forming a plurality of first electrodes arranged on the radially-outer-surface (#44, Figure 11E, electrodes on the radial outer surface of #42); forming a sacrificial layer (Figure 11D, #46, sacrificial layer), which is an annular deposition pattern on the plurality of first electrodes (Figure 11D, #46 is an annular structure shown to wrap around the central stem #14 and #46 is formed on #44s); forming a plurality of second electrodes, which are arranged on a bottom surface of the upper wafer in correspondence with the plurality of first electrodes (#40, Figure 11E, metallized layer which comprises a plurality of individual out of plane electrodes ([0107]) on the edge bottom regions of the wineglass structure #24 to correspond to the underlying #44s); bonding the upper wafer and the lower wafer with the sacrificial layer in between so that the plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes are superimposed (Figures 11E-11D, #42 and #24 are bonded at the stem #14, with the sacrificial layer #46 between them, so that the upper and lower electrodes at the edge regions of the device are at least partially superimposed); separating a radially outer portion, which is located at a radially outer side of the upper wafer than relative to the plurality of second electrodes . . . after the bonding (Figures 11D-11E, the wax portion #38 of the upper substrate is removed after the bonding takes place in Figure 11D) Shkel does not disclose that the radially outer portion is removed by etching and vacuum heating the upper wafer, the lower wafer, and the sacrificial layer are under a condition where a pressure in a cavity defined by the upper wafer, the lower wafer, and the sacrificial layer is different from an ambient pressure after the separating; and removing the sacrificial layer by etching after the vacuum heating at the pressure different from the ambient pressure. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2025/205825 A1; Yamaguchi et al.; 03/2025 – Figures 4-22 disclose a method of forming a gyroscope with a curved support structure that includes vacuum heating of the structure to form the cavities after bonding the two wafers together (Figure 16, Page 16) but is not eligible prior art as it was filed after the filing date of the instant application. US 2023/0061042 A1; Goto et al.; 03/2023 – Figures 4A-4B disclose a method of forming a cavity structure by shaping the upper substrate, prior to connection with the lower substrate by vacuum heating (see [0050]-[0053]). US 2018/0188030 A1; Shang et al.; 07/2018 – Figures 7a-7e disclose providing a foaming agent (#125) in the cavity prior to heating and expanding the cavity, then subsequent separation and attachment to the device substrate in Figures 10-12. US 2017/0233247 A1; Shkel et al.; 08/2017 – Figures 4A-4F disclose the method of glass blowing to form the cavity structure in the upper substrate before separation and bonding to the lower substrate in Figure 7. Fused Quartz Dual-Shell Resonator Gyroscope; Asadian et al.; 08/2022 – Figure 4 discloses using glass blowing to form the upper substrate cavity structure prior to separation and bonding with the lower substrate of the device in Figure 4f. Development of 3D Fused Quartz Hemi-Toroidal Shells for High-Q Resonators and Gyroscopes Asadian et al.; 12/2019 – Figure 12 discloses using glass blowing to form the upper substrate cavity structure prior to separation and bonding with the lower substrate of the device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM. 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, CHRISTINE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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. /TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592279
NEURAL NETWORK HARDWARE DEVICE AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581953
MICROWAVE DEVICE HAVING A CONDUCTIVE HEAT SPREADER AND ANTENNA HAVING MICROWAVE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581746
SILICON-CONTROLLED RECTIFIERS FOR ELECTROSTATIC DISCHARGE PROTECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575227
DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING A COMMON CONNECTION ELECTRODE UNDERNEATH THE PARTITION WALL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575078
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY ARRAY COMPRISING STACKED OXIDE SEMICONDUCTORS IN HYBRID CHANNEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+14.3%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 78 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month