DETAILED ACTION
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (US 20200298350 A1) in view of Chang et al. (US 8120152 B2).Regarding claim 1:Kurita teaches a vibrator device comprising:
a vibration element (FIG. 2 - 10); a circuit element (FIG. 2 - 30; [0034]) configured to drive the vibration element; and a package (FIG. 2 - e.g., 40, 41, 42; the general package shown in FIG. 2) that accommodates the vibration element and the circuit element, wherein the package includes a mounting surface (surface on which the 63s are formed) having a rectangular shape in a plan view and a plurality of external terminals (FIG. 2 - 63; e.g., [0040]) arranged at the mounting surface,Kurita fails to teach:
the plurality of external terminals include a corner terminal disposed at a corner of the mounting surface and a side terminal disposed at a side of the mounting surface, and an area of the corner terminal is larger than an area of the side terminalChang teaches (FIGS. 10-11):
the plurality of external terminals include a corner terminal (1010) disposed at a corner of the mounting surface and a side terminal (the outermost 1006’s) disposed at a side of the mounting surface, and an area of the corner terminal is larger than an area of the side terminal (Col. 14, Line 44 through Col. 15, Line 24)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use corner and side terminals, with the area of the corner terminal(s) being greater than the area of the side terminal(s), as taught by Chang, in the device of Kurita to strengthen the solder connections near the corners of the package, where stress can be greatest due to differential thermal expansion between the package and the leads. This may reduce the likelihood of cracking of these solder connections, and thus increase the reliability of surface mounting (Chang - Col. 15, Lines 19-24). As it relates to the “side terminals”, Kurita already teaches many internal terminals that connect to the external terminals 63. It is well-known in the art to have both corner and side terminals to output different information at the differing external terminals and/or to increase chip/package bonding.
Regarding claim 2:Kurita and Chang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection, Chang teaches:
wherein the mounting surface includes, as the side, a first side, a second side facing the first side, a third side, and a fourth side facing the third side, the side terminal is disposed along the first side or the second side, and a length of the corner terminal along the third side is larger than a length of the side terminal along the third side(FIGS. 10-11; Col. 14, Line 44 through Col. 15, Line 24)
Regarding claim 3:Kurita and Chang teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection, Chang teaches:
wherein a length of the corner terminal along the first side is larger than a length of the side terminal along the first side(FIGS. 10-11; Col. 14, Line 44 through Col. 15, Line 24)
Regarding claim 6:Kurita and Chang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Kurita also teaches:
wherein the vibration element is an angular velocity detection element configured to detect an angular velocity (e.g., [0027], [0031]-[0032])
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (US 20200298350 A1) in view of Chang et al. (US 8120152 B2) and further in view of Hsieh et al. (US 6495915 B1).Regarding claim 4:Kurita and Chang teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Kurita fails to teach:
wherein the circuit element includes an active element formation region where an active element is formed, and the active element formation region does not overlap the external terminal in the plan view of the mounting surfaceHsieh teaches:
wherein the circuit element (FIG. 5a - 6) includes an active element formation region (FIG. 5d - 616) where an active element is formed, and the active element formation region does not overlap the external terminal in the plan view of the mounting surface(Col. 3, Lines 9-48)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the active elements not overlapping the terminal(s) in plan view, as taught by Hsieh, in the device of Kurita, to reduce thermal stresses and dissipate more heat from the active components before it reaches the terminal(s) to prevent solder cracking or other negative thermal / heat interactions between the active components and the solder / terminals.
Regarding claim 5:Kurita, Chang, and Hsieh teach all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 4 rejection above, Hsieh teaches:
wherein at least a part of a region (FIG. 5d - 615) of the circuit element (FIG. 5a - 6) that is not the active element formation region overlaps the external terminal (e.g., FIG. 5d - equivalent to any one or more of 641-650 and 671-673) in the plan view of the mounting surface(Col. 3, Lines 9-48)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855