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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 1, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
(ii) With regard to page 6 (line 9 of paragraph [0044]), the term "the Z axis is set in a short-side direction" should be changed to the term --the X axis is set in a short-side direction-- in order to remain consistent the with drawings and disclosure.
Note: the Applicant states in the Response filed on July 8, 2026, "In this regard, the title of the subject application is replaced with the following title "RESONATOR DEVICE WITH MINIMAL BONDING LAYER". Additionally, paragraph [0044] is objected to for an alleged typographical error. In this regard, paragraph [0044] is amended to correct the alleged typographical error. Therefore, withdrawal to the objection to the specification is respectfully requested." See page 5 of the Response filed on July 8, 2026.
The Examiner notes, however, although there are amendments to the claims, there is no accompanying amendment to the specification in the Response filed on July 8, 2026..
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as 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 from 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) and Fukumitsu et al. (US 2021/0403316 A1).
As per claim 1, Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) discloses a resonator device comprising: a vibrating plate (e.g., 2) having a vibrating part (e.g., 21) and a frame part (e.g., 23) configured to surround the vibrating part (21) in a plan view (see Figs. 2, 4); a first sealing member (e.g. 3) bonded to one surface side of the vibrating plate (2); a second sealing member (e.g., 4) bonded to another surface side of the vibrating plate (2); and a bonding layer, wherein at least one of the first sealing member and the second sealing member is a resin film (e.g., see, inter alia, abstract, paragraphs [0044, 0063, 0064]), and the resin film (3, 4) is bonded to the frame part (23) via the bonding layer (e.g., the thermoplastic adhesive - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0024, 0066]).
As per claim 2, wherein the first sealing member (3) and the second sealing member (4) are each the resin film (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0044, 0063, 0064]).
As per amended claim 1, Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) does not explicitly disclose wherein the bonding layer does not exist on a surface of the resin film at the vibrating part side, with the bonding layer vertically aligned with a stepped portion of the frame part having a greater thickness than the vibrating part in a cross-sectional view, and the area where the bonding layer does not exist is vertically partially aligned with the stepped portion of the frame part having the greater thickness than the vibrating part in the cross-sectional view.
.
Additionally, as per claim 3, Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) further discloses wherein the vibrating part (21) is provided with an excitation electrode (e.g., 25 and/or 26), but does not expressly disclose where the bonding layer does not exist is an area overlapping at least the excitation electrode in a plan view.
As per claim 4, Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the area where the bonding layer does not exist is an area overlapping at least the vibrating part in a plan view.
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) discloses (as per claim 1) an analogous piezoelectric vibrator device, in the same field of endeavor as Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1), wherein Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) discloses the resonator device (1, see Fig. 1) comprising: a vibrating plate (e.g., 2) having a vibrating part (e.g., the portion of 2 sandwiched by 22/23 in Fig. 1) and a frame part (e.g., outer peripheral potion of (2)) configured to surround the vibrating part in a plan view (e.g., see Fig. 1); a first sealing member (e.g., 4) bonded to one surface side of the vibrating plate (2); a second sealing member (e.g., 3) bonded to another surface side of the vibrating plate (2) (e.g., see paragraph [0063] via joining material (5)); and a bonding layer (e.g., 5), wherein at least one of the sealing member (3, 4) is bonded to the frame part (e.g., outer peripheral potion of (2)) via the bonding layer (5) (see Fig. 1), and has an area where the bonding layer (5) does not exist on a surface at the vibrating part side (e.g., the portion of 2 sandwiched by 22/23 in Fig. 1) - see Fig. 1.
Additionally, as per amended claim 1, the bonding layer (5) is vertically aligned with a stepped portion of the frame part (portion of (2) which steps down/up to form the vibration part, from the frame of (2) as seen in Fig. 1) having a greater thickness than the vibrating part (e.g., the portion of 2 sandwiched by 22/23 in Fig. 1) in a cross-sectional view (Fig. 1), and the area where the bonding layer (5) does not exist is vertically partially aligned with the stepped portion of the frame part (outer peripheral thicker part (2)) having the greater thickness than the vibrating part (e.g., the portion of 2 sandwiched by 22/23 in Fig. 1) in the cross-sectional view - as seen in Fig. 1, wherein the bonding layer (5) does not extend to the inner peripheral edge of the frame (2).
Additionally, as per claim 3, Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) further discloses wherein the vibrating part (e.g., the portion of 2 sandwiched by 22/23 in Fig. 1) is provided with an excitation electrode (e.g., 23, 23), and the area where the bonding layer (5) does not exist is an area overlapping at least the excitation electrode in a plan view (see Fig. 1 of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1)).
As per claim 4, Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) further discloses wherein the area where the bonding layer (5) does not exist is an area overlapping at least the vibrating part (e.g., the portion of 2 sandwiched by 22/23 in Fig. 1) in a plan view (see Fig. 1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A) such that the bonding layer does not exist on a surface of the resin film (sealing member) at the vibrating part side (in addition to the features set forth in amended claim 1), in addition to the features of claims 3 and 4, as expressly disclosed by Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1), in order to advantageously minimize the amount of material for bonding the sealing member(s) to the frame (thus minimizing cost), and to further improve the joining strength between constituent members of the resonator device. See paragraph [0010] of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) .
As per claim 5, neither Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A) nor Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) expressly disclose an adsorption layer, such that the adsorption layer is arranged in the area where the bonding layer (e.g. layer (30) of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) in combination with Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A)) does not exist, nor show, as per claim 6, wherein the aforementioned adsorption layer is arranged between a surface at the vibrating plate side of the resin film and the bonding layer (of the combination of Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1)).
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Fukumitsu et al. (US 2021/0403316 A1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric vibrator device, in the same field of endeavor as Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1)/ Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1), wherein as per claim 5, Fukumitsu et al. (US 2021/0403316 A1) discloses an adsorption layer (e.g., 34) arranged in a corresponding area where a bonding layer (e.g., 60) does not exist (see Fig. 4); moreover, as per claim 6, the adsorption layer (e.g., 34) is arranged between a surface at a corresponding vibrating plate side (e.g., side of (120)) of the corresponding sealing member (e.g., 30) and the bonding layer (e.g. 60) - see Fig. 4.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Fukumitsu et al. (US 2021/0403316 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claims 5 and 6, as taught by Fukumitsu et al. (US 2021/0403316 A1), to the combined device of Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1), in order to advantageously provide a material that "adsorbs a released-gas generated in the vibration space S." See paragraph [0053] of Fukumitsu et al. (US 2021/0403316 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azuma et al. (JP 2013-171930 A).
See the description of Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1), supra.
As per claim 7, neither Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A) nor Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1) expressly disclose wherein in a space between the first sealing member and the second sealing member, an end portion at the space side of the bonding layer is covered with an inorganic film.
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Azuma et al. (JP 2013-171930 A) discloses an analogous crystal resonator (e.g., "As the electronic component 40, for example, an acceleration sensor, a gyro sensor, a MEMS element such as an RF switch, a semiconductor element, a passive element such as a filter or a crystal resonator, or the like can be used." - see the 8th paragraph under the section entitled "[Structure of Electronic Component Package According to First Embodiment]" of the enclosed English-machine translation). Emphasis added. Additionally, the sealed resonator (40) is sealed by first sealing member (e.g., 30) and second sealing member (e.g., 20), such that in a space between the first sealing member (30) and the second sealing member (20), an end portion at the space side of the corresponding bonding layer (e.g., 50) is covered with an inorganic film (e.g., metal film (51)) - see Figs. 1, 2 of Azuma et al. (JP 2013-171930 A).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Azuma et al. (JP 2013-171930 A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of claim 7, as taught by Azuma et al. (JP 2013-171930 A), to the combined device of Oinishi et al. (US 2022/0131519 A1) in view of Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1), in order to advantageously provide the following: "In the present embodiment, the inorganic film 51 is formed so as to cover the inner surface of the adhesive 50. Therefore, it is possible to prevent air or moisture from entering the electronic component sealing space in the electronic component package 10 from the outside of the electronic component package 10, and the gas contained in the adhesive 50 itself enters the electronic component sealing space. Can be prevented." See the enclosed English-machine translation of Azuma et al. (JP 2013-171930 A), in the paragraph just before the section entitled "[Method of Manufacturing Electronic Component Package According to First Embodiment]."
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Kohda et al. (US 2011/0215678 A1)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the newly added claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights