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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-3 , 6, 9-10 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh (PG Pub 20140333179) . Considering claim 1, Oh (Figure 5) teaches a vibration device, comprising: a mass component (152 + paragraph 0064); one or more piezoelectric components (220 + paragraph 0080) configured to produce a vibration based on an electrical signals; and one or more elastic components, wherein at least one elastic component (140 + 142 + 144 + 146 + paragraph 0055) of the one or more elastic components are connected to the mass component and the one or more piezoelectric components ; wherein the one or more piezoelectric components include a ring structure (220 + paragraph 0083) , and the one or more piezoelectric components are configured to be parallel to an axial direction of the ring structure (130 + paragraph 0039) based on a vibration direction of the electrical signal. Considering claim 2, Oh (Figure 5) teaches wherein the one or more piezoelectric components include a first piezoelectric component (220 + paragraph 0064) fixed at one end along an axial direction, and the mass component (152 + paragraph 0080) is connected to a location other than the one end on the first piezoelectric component through at least one elastic component of the one or more elastic components (see Figure 5). Considering claim 3, Oh (Figure 5) teaches wherein a projection of the mass (152 + paragraph 0064) component along the axial direction of the first piezoelectric component (220 + paragraph 0080) is located within a projection of the first piezoelectric component along the axial direction. Considering claim 6, Oh (Figure 5) teaches wherein the one or more elastic components (140 + 142 + 144 + 146 + paragraph 0055) connected between the mass component (152 + paragraph 0064) and the first piezoelectric component includes a plurality of elastic components and the plurality of elastic components are distributed along a circumference of the ring structure (see Figure 5). Considering claim 9, Oh (Figure 5) teaches wherein the shape of the one or more elastic components includes at least one of a folded shape (140 + paragraph 0055), an S-shape, a sample curve shape, an arc shape or a straight shape. Considering claim 10, Oh (Figure 5) teaches wherein each elastic component of the one or more elastic components has a plurality of bending sections (142 + 146 + paragraph 0055) and bending directions of the plurality of bending sections are opposite. Considering claim 32, Oh (Figure 5) teaches wherein the at least one elastic component of the one or more elastic components (140 + 142 + 144 + 146 + paragraph 0055) resonates with the mass component to produce a first resonant peak; and the one or more piezoelectric components resonate to produce a second resonant peak (paragraph 0064 + the limitation is the goal of the invention). 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) 4-5, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (PG Pub 20140333179) and in view of Jeong (PG Pub 20160074906). Considering claim 4, Oh teaches the vibration device as described above. However, Oh does not teach wherein a shape of the mass component is a ring and a projection of the mass component along the axial direction of the first piezoelectric component is located outside a projection of the first piezoelectric component along the axial direction. Jeong (Figure 3) teaches wherein a shape of the mass component is a ring (220 + paragraphs 0040-0042) and a projection of the mass component along the axial direction of the first piezoelectric component (160 + paragraphs 0040-0042) is located outside a projection of the first piezoelectric component along the axial direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a shape of the mass component is a ring and a projection of the mass component along the axial direction of the first piezoelectric component is located outside a projection of the first piezoelectric component along the axial direction into Oh’s device for the benefit of reducing any external impacts. Considering claim 5, Jeong (Figure 3) teaches wherein one side of the mass component (220 + paragraphs 0040-0042) along the axial direction of the first piezoelectric component is provided with a cover plate (112 + paragraph 0023) , the side of the mass component being away from the first piezoelectric component (160 + paragraphs 0040-0042). Considering claim 11, Jeong (Figure 3) teaches wherein the one or more elastic components include a first spiral structure (200) and a second spiral structure (202 + paragraph 0043) being connected to the mass component (220 + paragraphs 0040-0042) and the one or more piezoelectric components, respectively; and an axis of the first spiral structure is the same with an axis of the second spiral structure, and a spiral direction of the first spiral structure is opposite to a spiral direction of the second spiral structure (paragraph 0043). Considering claim 20, Jeong (Figure 3) teaches wherein the one or more piezoelectric components include at least two first piezoelectric components (3 + 4 + paragraph 0017) being connected to each other along the axial direction. Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (PG Pub 20140333179) and in view of Onishi (PG Pub 20130049876). Considering claim 12, Oh teaches the vibration device as described above. However, Oh does not teach wherein the one or more piezoelectric components include a first piezoelectric component and a second component, wherein the first piezoelectric component includes a first ring structure and the second piezoelectric component include a second ring structure; and the second piezoelectric component is arranged on an inner side of the first ring structure. Onishi (Figure 2) teaches wherein the one or more piezoelectric components include a first piezoelectric component (20 + paragraph 0028) and a second component (30 + paragraph 0028), wherein the first piezoelectric component includes a first ring structure and the second piezoelectric component include a second ring structure; and the second piezoelectric component is arranged on an inner side of the first ring structure (paragraph 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the one or more piezoelectric components include a first piezoelectric component and a second component, wherein the first piezoelectric component includes a first ring structure and the second piezoelectric component include a second ring structure; and the second piezoelectric component is arranged on an inner side of the first ring structure into Oh’s device for the benefit of providing an oscillator using piezoelectric which is capable of making a reduction in size while maintaining an output. Considering claim 18, Onishi teaches wherein electrical signals received by the first piezoelectric component (20 + paragraph 0028) and the second piezoelectric component (30 + paragraph 0028) includes a phase difference ( paragraph 0031). Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (PG Pub 20140333179) and in view of Song (PG Pub 20200076331). Considering claim 29, Oh teaches the vibration device as described above. However, Oh does not teach a piezoelectric beam configured to produced the vibration in the axial direction of the ring structure based on the electrical signal; and the piezoelectric beam is connected to the mass component. Song (Figure 1) teaches a piezoelectric beam (100 + paragraph 0044) configured to produce the vibration in the axial direction of the ring structure based on the electrical signal; and the piezoelectric beam is connected to the mass component (110 + paragraph 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a piezoelectric beam configured to produced the vibration in the axial direction of the ring structure based on the electrical signal; and the piezoelectric beam is connected to the mass component into Oh’s device for the benefit amplifying the vibration of the device. Claim(s) 33, 35 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (PG Pub 20140333179) and in view of Affleck (PG Pub 20210305481). Considering claim 33, Oh teaches the vibration device as described above. However, Oh does not teach a frequency range of the first resonant peak is within a range of 50 Hz – 2000 Hz. Affleck teaches a frequency range of the first resonant peak is within a range of 50 Hz – 2000 Hz (paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a frequency range of the first resonant peak is within a range of 50 Hz – 2000 Hz into Oh’s device for the benefit of operating the vibration device. Considering claim 35, Affleck teaches wherein a frequency range of the second resonant peak is within a range of 1000 Hz – 50000 Hz (paragraph 0035). Considering claim 38, Affleck teaches wherein a frequency ratio range of the second resonant peak to the first resonant peak ranges is within a range of 20 – 200 (paragraph 0035). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-15 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. Considering claim 13, the prior art does not teach the first piezoelectric component is fixed at one end along the axial direction, and the second piezoelectric component is connected to a location other than the one end on the first piezoelectric component through at least one elastic component of the one or more elastic components; and a projection of the mass component along the axial direction is located within a projection of the second piezoelectric component along the axial direction, and the mass component is connected to the second piezoelectric component through at least another elastic component in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations. Considering claim 14, the prior art does not teach the second piezoelectric component is fixed at one end along the axial direction, the first piezoelectric component is connected to the second piezoelectric component at a location other than the one end on the second piezoelectric component through at least one elastic component of the one or more elastic components; and the mass component is connected to the first piezoelectric component through at least another elastic component of the one or more elastic components in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations. Considering claim 15, the prior art does not teach wherein the mass component is connected to the first piezoelectric component through at least one elastic component of the one or more elastic components and the mass component is connected to the second piezoelectric component through at least another elastic component of the one or more elastic components in combination with the rest of the applicant’s claimed limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYAN P GORDON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5394 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dedei K Hammond can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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