Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/398,422

RESONANCE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
VO, ETHAN NGUYEN
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
25 granted / 36 resolved
+1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.2%
+22.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 36 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 12/24/25 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumitsu (WO 2020194810) and in view of Hurwitz (US 20190245515). Fukumitsu discloses a resonance device comprising: a first substrate having a first silicon substrate and a resonator (Fig. 4), wherein the resonator includes a single-crystal silicon film and a first silicon oxide film interposed between the single-crystal silicon film and the first silicon substrate (Fig. 4); a second substrate opposite the first substrate (Fig. 4); a frame shaped bonding portion that bonds the first substrate to the second substrate to seal a vibration space of the resonator (Fig. 4). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale Fukumitsu fails to disclose a through hole that passes through the single-crystal silicon film and the first silicon oxide film; and a first blocking member disposed in an interior of the through hole and surrounding a vibration portion of the resonator in a plan view of the first substrate so as to divide the first silicon oxide film, wherein the first blocking member has a lower helium permeability than the first silicon oxide film. Hurwitz discloses a through hole that passes through the single-crystal silicon film and the first silicon oxide film (Fig. 7); and a first blocking member disposed in an interior of the through hole and surrounding a vibration portion of the resonator in a plan view of the first substrate so as to divide the first silicon oxide film, wherein the first blocking member has a lower helium permeability than the first silicon oxide film (Fig. 7; Para 0249). PNG media_image2.png 320 619 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Fukumitsu with a through hole that passes through the single-crystal silicon film and the first silicon oxide film; and a first blocking member disposed in an interior of the through hole and surrounding a vibration portion of the resonator in a plan view of the first substrate so as to divide the first silicon oxide film, wherein the first blocking member has a lower helium permeability than the first silicon oxide film, as disclosed by Hurwitz, to better stabilize the device. As to claim 2, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first blocking member is more than a thickness of the first silicon oxide film (Fig. 7 of Hurwitz). PNG media_image2.png 320 619 media_image2.png Greyscale As to claim 3, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein the first blocking member covers at least an inner side surface of the inner surface of the through hole (Fig. 7; Para 0012). PNG media_image2.png 320 619 media_image2.png Greyscale As to claim 4, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein the resonator includes: a lower electrode on a second substrate side of the first silicon oxide film (Fig. 7 of Fukumitsu); a piezoelectric film on a second substrate side of the lower electrode (Fig. 7 of Fukumitsu); and an upper electrode on a second substrate side of the piezoelectric film (Fig. 7 of Fukumitsu). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 5, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein the first blocking member is composed of silicon nitride (Para 0249 of Hurwitz). As to claim 7, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein the first blocking member is in a region surrounded by the bonding portion in the plan view of the first substrate (Fig. 7 of Hurwitz). PNG media_image2.png 320 619 media_image2.png Greyscale As to claim 9, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to Claim 1, wherein the first substrate includes a second silicon oxide film (F3) on a surface opposite the second substrate (Fig. 4), and an end portion of the second silicon oxide film is covered with a material of the bonding portion (Fig. 4). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 10, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to Claim 9, wherein the second substrate includes a third silicon oxide film (62) on a surface opposite the first substrate (Fig. 4), and an end portion of the third silicon oxide film is covered with a material of the bonding portion (Fig. 4). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 11, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to Claim 1, wherein the second substrate includes a second silicon oxide film (L31) on a surface opposite the first substrate (Fig. 4), and an end portion of the second silicon oxide film is covered with a material of the bonding portion (Fig. 4). Claims 6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumitsu, Hurwitz, and in view of Huang (CN 112039472). As to claim 6, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1. Fukumitsu fails to disclose wherein the first blocking member is composed of metal. Huang discloses the first blocking member is composed of metal (Para 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Fukumitsu with the first blocking member is composed of metal, as disclosed by Huang, to provide the blocking member with more stability. As to claim 12, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein the second substrate includes: a second silicon substrate (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu); a penetration electrode (V3) that penetrates the second silicon substrate (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu); an internal terminal (70) on a first substrate side of the penetration electrode (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu); an external terminal (T4)) opposite to the first substrate side of the penetration electrode (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu); a second silicon oxide film (L31) extending continuously over a region between the second silicon substrate and the penetration electrode (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu), an inner region between the second silicon substrate and the internal terminal (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu), and an outer region between the second silicon substrate and the external terminal (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale Fukimitsu fails to disclose wherein the resonance device further comprises: a second blocking member surrounding the penetration electrode in a plan view of the second substrate in at least one of the inner region and the outer region so as to divide the second silicon oxide film and the second blocking member has a lower helium permeability than the second silicon oxide film. Huang discloses wherein the resonance device further comprises: a second blocking member surrounding the penetration electrode in a plan view of the second substrate in at least one of the inner region and the outer region so as to divide the second silicon oxide film (Fig. 2 of Huang) and the second blocking member has a lower helium permeability than the second silicon oxide film (“the first through hole 140 and the second through hole 150 is filled by the conductive layer”). PNG media_image3.png 299 500 media_image3.png Greyscale As to claim 13, the combination of Fukumitsu, Hurwitz, and Huang discloses the resonance device according to claim 12, wherein the second blocking member (Fig. 2 of Huang) is composed of silicon nitride (Para 0249 of Hurwitz). PNG media_image3.png 299 500 media_image3.png Greyscale As to claim 14, the combination of Fukumitsu, Hurwitz, and Huang discloses the resonance device according to claim 12, wherein the first substrate includes a third silicon oxide film on a surface opposite the second substrate (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu), and an end portion of the third silicon oxide film is covered with a material of the bonding portion (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 15, the combination of Fukumitsu, Hurwitz, and Huang discloses the resonance device according to Claim 14, wherein the second substrate includes a fourth silicon oxide film (34) on a surface opposite the first substrate (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu), and an end portion of the fourth silicon oxide film is covered with a material of the bonding portion (Fig. 4 of Fukumitsu). PNG media_image1.png 477 834 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumitsu, Hurwitz, and in view of Ueno (US 20120056513). As to claim 8, the combination of Fukumitsu and Hurwitz discloses the resonance device according to claim 1, wherein the first blocking member overlaps the bonding portion in the plan view of the first substrate (Fig. 7 of Hurwitz). PNG media_image2.png 320 619 media_image2.png Greyscale Fukumitsu fails to discloses the first blocking member is composed of a material of the bonding portion. Ueno discloses the first blocking member is composed of a material of the bonding portion (Para 0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Fukumitsu with the first blocking member is composed of a material of the bonding portion, as disclosed by Ueno, to simplify the manufacturing process. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. 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. /ETHAN NGUYEN VO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834 /CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603538
ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592597
SELECTIVE PERMEABILITY ROTOR STRUCTURE FOR INTERIOR PERMANENT MAGNET MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587059
Electric Motor Coolant Frame and Header
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580446
ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580501
VIBRATION WAVE RADIATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
69%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+23.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 36 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