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 .
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The statement “so as to be superimposed on whole of” is idiomatic and unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 9, 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (JP 2019-211229) in view of Kojo (US 2019/0312565).
Fukui discloses, regarding,
Claim 1, A thermistor-mounting piezoelectric resonator device comprising: a piezoelectric resonator device having a sandwich structure (see Fig. 6), the piezoelectric resonator device including: a piezoelectric resonator plate 102 having a vibrating part on a first main surface of which a first excitation electrode 221 is formed and on a second main surface of which a second excitation electrode 222 is formed (see Figs. 9, 10); a first sealing member 103 laminated so as to cover the first main surface side of the piezoelectric resonator plate 102; and a second sealing member 104 laminated so as to cover the second main surface side of the piezoelectric resonator plate 102 (see Fig. 6), the piezoelectric resonator plate being bonded to the first sealing member and the second sealing member so as to form an internal space in which the vibrating part is hermetically sealed (see English machine translation pertaining to Figs. 6, 9, 8, 10, 11); and a thin plate-like thermistor 10 mounted on an outer surface of the first sealing member 103 of the piezoelectric resonator device, wherein the thin plate-like thermistor is located so as to be superimposed on at least a part of the vibrating part in plan view (see Fig. 6).
Kojo is being cited for explicitly illustrating that there is an internal space in which the resonator plate is hermetically sealed (see Fig. 1).
The Prior Art further discloses, regarding,
Claim 2, the thin plate-like thermistor 10 is located so as to be superimposed on whole of the first excitation electrode and the second excitation electrode in plan view (Fukui, see Figs, 6, 9).
Claim 3, in the thin plate-like thermistor 10, a common electrode 11a is formed on a first main surface of a thermistor flat plate as a single plate, and split electrodes 15 are formed on a second main surface thereof (see Fig. 1), and the common electrode 11a is formed so as to cover almost whole of the first main surface of the thermistor flat plate (Fukui, see Fig. 1).
Claim 5, A thermistor-mounting piezoelectric resonator device comprising: a piezoelectric resonator device having a sandwich structure, the piezoelectric resonator device including: a piezoelectric resonator plate having a vibrating part on a first main surface of which a first excitation electrode is formed, and on a second main surface of which a second excitation electrode is formed; a first sealing member laminated so as to cover the first main surface side of the piezoelectric resonator plate; and a second sealing member laminated so as to cover the second main surface side of the piezoelectric resonator plate, the piezoelectric resonator plate being bonded to the first sealing member and the second sealing member so as to form an internal space in which the vibrating part is hermetically sealed; and a thin plate-like thermistor mounted on an outer surface of the first sealing member of the piezoelectric resonator device (see rejection for claim 1 above), wherein the piezoelectric resonator plate is provided with: the vibrating part; an external frame part surrounding an outer periphery of the vibrating part (Fukui, Fig. 7; Kojo, Figs. 1, 10, 11); and a support part supporting the vibrating part by connecting the vibrating part to the external frame part (Fukui, Fig. 7; Kojo, Figs. 1, 10, 11), and the thin plate-like thermistor is located so as to be superimposed on the external frame part on two sides (Fukui, Figs. 2, 3), facing each other, of the piezoelectric resonator device (see Fig. 1, 6).
Claims 9, 13, the first sealing member and the second sealing member are each made of a brittle material since it is disclosed that the sealing member are formed of crystal (Fukui, English machine translation pertaining to Figs. 7, 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the device as disclosed by Fukui and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Kojo for the purpose of improving the stability of a piezoelectric resonator.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui and Kojo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toda (WO 2016/084782).
The combined resonator device discloses all the elements above. However, the combined resonator device does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Toda discloses, regarding,
Claim 3, in the thin plate-like thermistor, a common electrode 30 is formed on a first main surface of a thermistor flat plate as a single plate, and split electrodes 21, 22 are formed on a second main surface thereof, and the common electrode is formed so as to cover almost whole of the first main surface of the thermistor flat plate (see Toda, Figs, 1, 3).
Claim 4, in the thin plate-like thermistor, a common electrode 30 is formed on a first main surface of a thermistor flat plate as a single plate, and split electrodes 21, 22 are formed on a second main surface thereof, and the split electrodes occupy half or more of an area of the thermistor flat plate (see Figs. 1, 2).
Moreover, regarding the language that the split electrodes occupy an area, such language seems to be mere optimization. Such would have been a matter of design choice since the claims do not describe that such area coverage solves any stated problem or is for any particular reason and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with another electrode area coverage.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator device as disclosed above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Toda for the purpose of protecting a thermistor from damage.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui and Kojo as applied to claims 1, 5 above, and further in view of Kenjo (JP 2017-118393).
The combined resonator device discloses all the elements above. However, the combined resonator device does not disclose the elements below.
On the other hand, Kenjo discloses, regarding,
Claims 6, 10, the thin plate-like thermistor 5 and the piezoelectric resonator device 3, 21, are electrically connected to each other via a conductive resin adhesive 35, 9, and furthermore a gap between the thin plate-like thermistor 5 and the piezoelectric resonator device 3 is filled with a non-conductive resin adhesive 12 (see Figs. 1, 2).
Claim 7, 11, the conductive resin adhesive has a thermal conductivity higher than that of the non-conductive resin adhesive since it is obvious that conductive material is more prone to thermal conductivity due to the need to have certain degree of flexibility or stress absorption in order to handle the thermal expansion mismatch between the electric components and metal material and a non-conductive resin acts as an insulator, thus having no thermal conductivity.
Claim 8, 12, the non-conductive resin adhesive has a hardness higher than that of the conductive resin adhesive since conductive fillers (conductive resin) are typically soft metals and non-conductive resins are reinforced with hard ceramic, silica and are built for structural rigidity purposes. Thus, a non-conductive material has a hardness higher than a conductive resin.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use such material (non-conductive resin and conductive), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the combined resonator device as disclosed above and to disclose the limitations pertaining to Kenjo for the purpose of improving the manufacturing of a piezoelectric device.
Examiner Notes
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R – 07.2015] VI. PRIOR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP ₴ 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julio C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-2024. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 5712703119. 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.
/Julio C. Gonzalez/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2831
October 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights