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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without an express traversal of Species A (claim 1-5) in the reply filed on 2 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and made final.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 2 June 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 6-10 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1, lines 5 and 6, recites “wherein the outer frame, the first layer and the third layer are constituted a rectangular accommodation portion,” which is indefinite due to the improper grammar and composition. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application and the remainder of the claim, this will be interpreted as “wherein the outer frame, the first layer and the third layer form a rectangular accommodation portion.” Claims 2-5 are rejected due to their dependence from base claim 1.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (JP2015046666A), English translation enclosed.
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamada teaches in Figs. 7a and 7b a package structure, comprising:
a first layer (56, 58) {[0061]};
a second layer (1, 54, 60), comprising an outer frame (54), a resonator (1) and a chip (60) {[0057]}; and
a third layer (52), wherein the second layer (1, 54, 60) is arranged between the first layer (56, 58) and the third layer (52), wherein the outer frame (54), the first layer (56, 58) and the third layer (52) form a rectangular accommodation portion (70), the resonator (1) and the chip (60) are located in the rectangular accommodation portion (70), the chip (60) is located at a side of the resonator (1), and the chip (60) is electrically connected to the third layer (52) and the resonator (1) through a plurality of conductive components (62) on the chip (60) {Figs. 7a, 7b; [0057]; [0056], oscillator 3 includes an oscillating element 1 and an IC chip (chip component) 60 having an oscillating circuit for driving the oscillating element 1;[0059], the plurality of connection terminals 42 provided on the top surface of the first substrate 52 are electrically connected to the plurality of connection terminals 62 provided on the top surface of the IC chip 60 by bonding wires 66}.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches the package structure according to claim 1, and Yamada further teaches wherein the resonator (1) and the chip (60) are located at the same level {Fig. 7b}.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US20200014366A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the package structure according to claim 1, but Yamada does not teach in the embodiment illustrated by Figs. 7a and 7b wherein the first layer, the outer frame, the resonator and the third layer are composed of quartz.
However, in the embodiment taught by Figs. 2a and 2b and paragraph [0031] an outer frame (20) and a resonator (10) are composed of quartz. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s package structure based on the further teachings of Yamada – such that the outer frame and the resonator are composed of quartz – to acquire excellent vibration characteristics. Yamada [0031].
Yamada does not teach the first layer and the third layer are composed of quartz.
In an analogous art, Ikeda teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0024, 0091] a first layer (200) and a third layer (300) are composed of quartz. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s package structure based on the teachings of Ikeda – such that the first layer and the third layer are composed of quartz – so it is possible to directly join the base member …, the quartz crystal resonator …, and the lid member … to each other without using a joining member. Ikeda [0091].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Ikeda as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US20120212107A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada as modified by Ikeda teaches the package structure according to claim 2, but Yamada does not teach wherein the resonator and the outer frame are an integral structure.
In an analogous art, Yamaguchi teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0034] a resonator (31) and an outer frame (33) are an integral structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s package structure as modified by Ikeda based on the teachings of Yamaguchi – such that the resonator and the outer frame are an integral structure – so the resonator and its frame may be formed from a plate-shaped member [of] a quartz crystal by using photolithography technique. Yamaguchi [0007]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., resonator, outer frame, integral structure) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Yamaguchi) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vos et al. (US20140037115A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches the package structure according to claim 1, but Yamada does not teach wherein the first layer, the second layer and the third layer are electrically connected to each other through a plurality of vias.
In an analogous art, Vos teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0033] a first layer (102), a second layer (104) and a third layer (106) are electrically connected to each other through a plurality of vias (170, 172). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada’s package structure based on the teachings of Vos – such that the first layer, the second layer and the third layer are electrically connected to each other through a plurality of vias – because: (1) the vias provide electrical connections for various types of electrical signals {Vos [0039]}, (2) provid[e] a signal path … for the processed signal of the integrated circuit {Vos [0039]}, and/or (3) provide[] a path for a Vdd source power voltage to the integrated circuit {Vos [0039]}.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Owaki et al. (US20150295580A1) teaches a temperature-compensated piezoelectric oscillator as an oscillator includes a piezoelectric resonator incorporating a resonator element, an electronic component (IC) as a circuit element having a function of driving the resonator element and a thermosensor, and a wiring board provided with a conductor film, and the piezoelectric resonator element and the electronic component (IC) are disposed side by side in an area where the conductor film is disposed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights