CTFR 18/465,260 CTFR 86450 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 – 11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katase (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0269336 A1) . With respect to claims 1, 14 and 15 Katase discloses an electronic component (see fig.2A) comprising an electronic device (see fig.2A, 101) and a container (see the container of 20 and 30 in fig.2A) configured to house the electronic device (see 101 in fig.2A), wherein the container (see 20 and 30 in fig.2A) includes a support (20 in fig.2A) configured to support the electronic device (see 101 in fig.2), and a quartz plate (see the crystal quartz of 30) having a principal plane (302) facing the electronic device, and an angle θ formed by the principal plane (302) and an optical axis (Cz in fig.2A) of the quartz plate satisfies |θ| < 30° or 60° <| θ| (see para.[0038]: “ It is therefore preferable for the angles of the side faces 305 and 306 relative to the optical axis Cz to be greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees . ) the ranges overlap but Katase does not explicitly disclose the range of 3°<|θ| and | θ|< 87°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic component of Katase so that the range is extended to include the range of 3°<|θ| and | θ|< 87°, since it would predictly improve manufacturing tolerance, since in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claim 2, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the quartz plate in a direction perpendicular to the principal plane is not less than 0.2 mm and is not more than 0.5 mm ([0054] While the examples of the shape of the crystal quartz 30 have been described in the first to fourth embodiments, it is preferable for the thickness of the crystal quartz 30 in the direction perpendicular to the outer face 301 and the inner face 302 to be greater than or equal to 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 1.0 mm in each embodiment. ). With respect to claim 3, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the principal plane has a rectangular shape (see the rectangular shape of fig.1), and a long side of the rectangle is perpendicular to the optical axis (see the orientation of Cz in fig.2B; para.[0042]: the longer side direction of the outer face 301 and the inner face 302 is parallel to the electric axis Cx. ; thus the long side which is parallel to Cx is perpendicular to Cz, since Cx is perpendicular to Cz). With respect to claim 4, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the principal plane has a rectangular shape (see the rectangular shape of fig.1), and a short side of the rectangle is perpendicular to the optical axis ([0042]: However, the embodiment is not limited thereto, and the shorter side direction of the outer face 301 and the inner face 302 may be parallel to the electric axis Cx. The relationship of the shorter sides and the longer sides of the outer face 301 and the inner face 302 to the electric axis Cx can be selected properly from various points of view such as in terms of the optimal number of crystal quartzes 30 cut out of a crystal quartz ingot. ; thus the short side which is parallel to Cx is perpendicular to Cz, since Cx is perpendicular to Cz). With respect to claim 9, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device serves as an image capturing device (see para.[0028]:” When the electronic device 10 is an image pickup device such as a CCD image sensor or a CMOS image sensor , the primary region 1 is an image pickup region, and the secondary region 2 is a peripheral circuit region. When the electronic device 10 is a display device such as a liquid crystal display or an EL display, the primary region 1 is a display region, and the secondary region 2 is a peripheral circuit region .”). With respect to claim 10, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device serves as a display device (see para.[0028]:” When the electronic device 10 is an image pickup device such as a CCD image sensor or a CMOS image sensor, the primary region 1 is an image pickup region, and the secondary region 2 is a peripheral circuit region. When the electronic device 10 is a display device such as a liquid crystal display or an EL display , the primary region 1 is a display region, and the secondary region 2 is a peripheral circuit region .”). With respect to claims 11, 16 and 17, Katase discloses an apparatus (see fig.2A) comprising: an electronic component (see 101 in fig.2A); and a controller (see para.[0028]: “ The secondary region 2 , which is a peripheral circuit region, is provided with a drive circuit for driving the primary region 1 , a signal processing circuit for processing a signal output from the primary region 1 (or a signal output to the primary region 1 ) ”) configured to control the electronic component (see 10 in fig.2A), wherein the electronic component includes an electronic device (see fig.2A, 101) and a container (see the container of 20 and 30 in fig.2A) configured to house the electronic device (see 101 in fig.2A), wherein the container (see 20 and 30 in fig.2A) includes a support (20 in fig.2A) configured to support the electronic device (see 101 in fig.2), and a quartz plate (see the crystal quartz of 30) having a principal plane (302) facing the electronic device, and an angle θ formed by the principal plane (302) and an optical axis (Cz in fig.2A) of the quartz plate satisfies |θ| < 30° or 60° <| θ| (see para.[0038]: “ It is therefore preferable for the angles of the side faces 305 and 306 relative to the optical axis Cz to be greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees . ) the ranges overlap but Katase does not explicitly disclose the range of 3°<|θ| and | θ|< 87°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic component of Katase so that the range is extended to include the range of 3°<|θ| and | θ|< 87°, since it would predictably improve manufacturing tolerance, since in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claims 5 and 7, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a coefficient of linear expansion of the support is not less than 6 ppm and is less than 10 ppm, or wherein a coefficient of linear expansion of the support is not less than 10 ppm and is less than 14 ppm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Katase so that wherein a coefficient of linear expansion of the support is not less than 6 ppm and is less than 10 ppm, or wherein a coefficient of linear expansion of the support is not less than 10 ppm and is less than 14 ppm, since it would predictably facilitate the control of material stress and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claim 6, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 5, Katase discloses |θ| < 30° (see para.[0038]: “ It is therefore preferable for the angles of the side faces 305 and 306 relative to the optical axis Cz to be greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees . ) the ranges overlap but Katase does not explicitly disclose the range of 3°<|θ|. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic component of Katase so that the range is extended to include the range of 3°<|θ|, since it would predictly improve manufacturing tolerance, since in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claim 8, Katase discloses the electronic component according to claim 7, Katase discloses 60° <| θ| is satisfied (see para.[0038]: “ It is therefore preferable for the angles of the side faces 305 and 306 relative to the optical axis Cz to be greater than or equal to 30 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees . ) but Katase does not explicitly disclose the range of | θ|< 87°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic component of Katase so that the range is extended to include the range of | θ|< 87°, since it would predictly improve manufacturing tolerance, since in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 14-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 JERRY L. BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5711. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:00 PM. 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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. /JERRY L BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/465,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/465,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/465,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/465,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/465,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 2882 Application/Control Number: 18/465,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 2882
Prosecution Insights