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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the term “when” in claims 1 and 6 is interpreted as conditional language. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “when” may imply that the limitation following the “when” clause is required only if the stated condition is satisfied. However, for purposes of searching and applying prior art, the claims are also considered under Applicant’s apparent intended meaning, i.e., as if “when” defines the corresponding region.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, and 7, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/475,730.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/475,730 is directed to a method for manufacturing a vibrator including first and second vibration arms having bottomed grooves opened in a first surface, preparing a quartz crystal substrate having first and second surfaces, forming a protective film at the first surface, and dry etching the quartz crystal substrate from the first surface through the protective film. Claim 1 of the instant application differs by reciting sequential protective film formation and sequential dry etching steps, rather than protective film thickness relationships R1 > R2. The difference is an obvious variation of protective-film control for selectively controlling etch depth during groove formation in the same quartz vibrator manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 6, claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/475,730 recites forming third and fourth grooves opened in the second surface, forming a second protective film at the second surface, and dry etching from the second surface through the second protective film. Claim 6 of the instant application differs by reciting sequential backside protective film formation and sequential backside dry etching steps. This difference is likewise an obvious variation of protective-film control for selectively controlling etch depth during backside groove formation.
Regarding claim 8, claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/475,730 recites that the vibrator is an angular velocity detection element configured to detect an angular velocity, the first vibration arm performs flexural vibration in response to an applied drive signal, and the second vibration arm performs flexural vibration in response to an applied angular velocity. Claim 8 of the instant application recites the same limitation.
Regarding claim 9, claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/475,730 recites the same vibrator structure including a base portion, a pair of second vibration arms, a pair of support arms, and pairs of first vibration arms extending from the support arms. Claim 9 of the instant application recites the same limitation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai (US 2008/0209703 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 2003/0071542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwai teaches a method for manufacturing a vibrator (processes for making piezoelectric tuning-fork vibrators; Abstract; paragraphs [0048]-[0049]). Iwai continues to teach the vibrator includes a first vibration arm and a second vibration arm (pair of arms 21 extending from base portion 29; paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). Iwai further teaches the first vibration arm has a first surface and a second surface which are in a front and back relationship and has a bottomed first groove opened in the first surface (front and reverse surfaces of arms 21, with recesses 27 formed on the surfaces of each arm, each recess having a depth less than the wafer thickness; paragraph [0037]). Iwai teaches the second vibration arm has a bottomed second groove opened in the first surface (each arm 21 includes recesses 27 on the front surface; paragraph [0037]). Iwai also teaches a preparation step of preparing a quartz crystal substrate having the first surface and the second surface (single-crystal quartz wafer 10 having opposing major surfaces; paragraphs [0045], [0049]). Iwai continues to teach forming protective films on the quartz crystal substrate (corrosion-resistant film 32 formed on both major surfaces followed by photoresist layer 36; paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). Iwai teaches dry etching the quartz crystal substrate through the protective film (step S126 may involve dry etching, including RIE or ion-beam etching; paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0072]). Iwai further teaches a second etching step to form recesses/grooves, wherein the recesses may alternatively be formed by dry etching (step S130 forms recesses 27 and may be dry etching; paragraph [0061]).
Iwai does not expressly teach forming the first protective film in a region other than both the first groove formation region and the second groove formation region, forming a second protective film in the first groove formation region, and then performing a second dry etching step through the first protective film and the second protective film.
Satoh teaches selectively forming protective films in different regions of a quartz substrate to control subsequent etching. Satoh teaches Cr/Au mask layers and resist films formed on quartz, selective removal of mask portions, lift-off formation of thicker Cr mask portions, and etching such that portions with no Cr are etched earlier, portions with thin Cr are etched with delay, and portions with thick Cr are hardly etched (paragraphs [0209]-[0216]). Satoh further teaches forming groove-section protective/etching-delay films, where only Cr remains in groove-section regions while Cr/Au remains in other regions (paragraphs [0257]-[0264]). Satoh further teaches that quartz wafer formation may be performed by dry etching (paragraph [0243]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwai’s staged quartz etching process to include Satoh’s selectively retained protective-film arrangement in groove formation regions because Satoh teaches that selective protective-film placement controls etch progression, protects selected regions during subsequent etching, and improves dimensional control of quartz vibration structures (paragraphs [0075]-[0080] and [0261]-[0268]). Such a modification would have predictably controlled groove depth while preserving bottomed groove geometry. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 2, modified Iwai teaches the method of claim 1 above.
Modified Iwai does not expressly teach a third protective film formation step of forming a third protective film in the second groove formation region and a third dry etching step of dry etching the quartz crystal substrate from the first surface through the first protective film, the second protective film, and the third protective film.
Iwai teaches repeated protective-film processing for groove/recess formation, including applying new photoresist 36′, exposing and developing the photoresist in recess regions, and performing a second etching step to form recesses 27, wherein the recesses may be formed by dry etching (paragraphs [0012]-[0013], [0054]-[0056], [0061]).
Satoh teaches selectively retained protective films and etching-delay films in groove-forming regions to control etching timing and depth (paragraphs [0075]-[0080], [0261]-[0268]). Satoh further teaches forming groove sections by selectively retaining Cr as an etching-delay film in groove-section regions while retaining Cr/Au films in other regions (paragraphs [0261]-[0268]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Iwai to repeat the known protective-film formation and dry-etching sequence for another groove formation region because Iwai teaches repeated protective-film processing and dry etching for recess formation, and Satoh teaches selectively retained protective films in groove-forming regions to control etching timing and depth. Such a modification would have predictably controlled relative groove depths while preventing over-etching or penetration. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 4, modified Iwai teaches the method of claim 2 above.
Satoh teaches the first protective film has a lower etching rate than the second protective film and the third protective film by disclosing protective films having different etching rates, including Au, which is hardly dissolved by the etching solution, and Cr, which has a higher etching rate and functions as an etching-delay film (paragraphs [0264]-[0265]). Satoh further teaches that etching rates of respective mask layers may be made different by using mask layers made of mutually different materials (paragraph [0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Satoh’s different-etching-rate protective films in modified Iwai because Satoh teaches that different mask-layer etching rates control etching progress in quartz vibration structures. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 5, modified Iwai teaches the method of claim 2 above.
Satoh teaches the second protective film and the third protective film are metal films or resin films by disclosing Cr and Au metal films used as protective/mask films during quartz etching (paragraphs [0209]-[0212], [0261]-[0265]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Iwai teaches the method of claim 1 above. Iwai further teaches the vibrator has a bottomed third groove opened in the second surface of the first vibration arm and a bottomed fourth groove opened in the second surface of the second vibration arm (recesses 27 formed on the reverse surfaces of each arm 21; paragraph [0037]). Iwai further teaches protective films formed on both major surfaces of the quartz wafer and etching from the opposite surface to form recesses, with dry etching as an alternative (paragraphs [0049]-[0050], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Satoh’s selective protective-film technique to Iwai’s second-surface etching process to control backside groove formation and prevent over-etching. This modification would result in a fourth protective film, a fourth dry etching step, a fifth protective film and a firth dry etching step as recited in claim 6, as discussed above with regard to claims 1-2.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Satoh et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kikushima et al. (US 2010/0207495 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Iwai teaches the method of claim 1 above.
Modified Iwai does not expressly teach wherein the vibrator is an angular velocity detection element configured to detect an angular velocity, the first vibration arm performs a flexural vibration in response to an applied drive signal, and the second vibration arm performs a flexural vibration in response to an applied angular velocity.
Kikushima teaches wherein the vibrator is an angular velocity detection element configured to detect an angular velocity (flexural resonator element 500 includes detection beams 26 and driving beams 28, and the element can detect acceleration and angular acceleration; paragraphs [0079]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Iwai to manufacture Kikushima’s angular-motion detection vibrator configuration because Kikushima teaches a known flexural resonator layout having driving beams and detection beams suitable for detecting angular acceleration. Combining the known manufacturing process of modified Iwai with Kikushima’s known angular-motion sensing vibrator layout would have yielded the predictable result of manufacturing an angular-velocity detection element. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Iwai in view of Satoh and further in view of Kikushima teaches the limitations of claim 8 above.
Kikushima also teaches a base portion, a pair of the second vibration arms extending from the base portion to both sides in a first direction, a pair of support arms extending from the base portion to both sides in a second direction intersecting the first direction, a pair of the first vibration arms extending from one of the support arms to both sides in the first direction, and a pair of the first vibration arms extending from the other one of the support arms to both sides in the first direction (base portion 12, connecting portions 14 extending in opposite X directions, detection beams 26 extending in opposite Y directions, and driving beams 28 extending from connecting portions 14; paragraphs [0082]-[0084], Figure 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest wherein a removal region other than the element formation region is etched through in the third dry etching step, i.e., through-etched to form the outer shaped of the vibrator, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 3 and its base claim 2.
As to claim 7, the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the sixth protective film formation step and the sixth dry etching step of dry etching the quartz crystal substrate from the second surface through the fourth protective film, the fifth protective film, and the sixth protective film in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 7 and its base claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights