The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ election without traverse of species I, claims 1-3, 5-12; 14-16; 17-20 in the reply filed on 5 August 2026 is acknowledged.
However, upon a further review of the claims elected by applicants’, the examiner has determined that the subject matter of claims 2, 3, 5, 10-12, 15, 16, 18 are directed to non-elected species (e.g. non-elected species II, III for claims 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, 18; non-elected species X, XI for claims 10-12, etc.) and thus such claims will not be included with the claims directed to the elected species. Accordingly, these claims will be included with non-elected claims 4 & 13 identified by the applicants’. It is noted that these non-elected claims may be rejoined with the elected claims upon an appropriate determination of patentability for the elected claims.
Claims 2-5, 10-13; 15, 16; 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5 August 2026.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, in the heading immediately preceding paragraph [0005], note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 2, in paragraph [0009], 5th line therein, note that --enough-- should be inserted after “large” for idiomatic clarity. Page 4, in paragraph [0017], 7th line therein, note that the term “one” should be rewritten as --another-- for an appropriate characterization. At all occurrences throughout the specification where pronoun “it” is present, such pronoun should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description (e.g. see paragraphs [0018], [0170], [0200], etc.). At all instances throughout the specification where the recitation “referred to as …” is present, note that the referred to feature needs to be placed in quotes for an appropriate characterization (e.g. see paragraphs [0021], [0151], [0166], [0177], etc.). Page 9, in paragraph [0053], third & 4th lines therein, note that the recitation of “may be distributed outside the disc circumferential direction” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 9, in paragraph [0058], note that the term “running” should be rewritten as --extending-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 12, in paragraph [0081], last line therein, note the recitation of “refer to the drive electrode” appears incomplete and thus is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 13, in paragraph [0084], note that the recitation of “the foregoing parameters” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear as to which parameters would be intended by the “foregoing” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. At all instances throughout the specification, note that the recitation of “negatively/positively correlated” with a respect to a feature or characteristic is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed (e.g. see paragraphs [0086], [0105], [0334], etc.). Page 19, in the heading therein, note that --DETAIL-- should be inserted prior to “DESCRIPTION” for an appropriate characterization. Page 19, in paragraph [0147], first line therein, note that --value-- should be inserted “Q” for an appropriate clarification. Page 21, in paragraph [0151], third line therein, note that the recitation of “whose Chinese name is …” is deemed inappropriate in view of the use of terminology that is not in English and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 22, in paragraph [0156], first line therein, note that the term “actor” should be rewritten as --factor-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 22, in formula 2, note that the terms in that formula need to be strictly defined (i.e. in words) for clarity and completeness of description. Page 22, in paragraph [0161], third line therein, note that --g-- should be inserted after “spacing” for an appropriate characterization. Page 23, in paragraph [0164], 5th line therein, note that the recitation of “to coupling the” should be rewritten for idiomatic clarity. Page 27, in paragraph [0184], first line therein, note that reference to the “RB mode” is vague in meaning, especially since no such mode has been previously defined and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 29, in paragraph [0193], 4th, 6th lines therein, note that the designations “2e6” (i.e. 4th line therein) and “5e5” (i.e. 6th line therein) should be rewritten as --2*106-- and --5*105--, respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations. Page 37, in paragraph [0233], last line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 9-- should be inserted after “resonator” for an appropriate characterization consistent with what is depicted in that drawing. Page 37, in paragraph [0234], 4th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 10-- should be inserted after “stacked” for an appropriate characterization consistent with what is depicted in that drawing. Page 37, in paragraph [0236], third line therein, note that --(FIG. 13)-- should be inserted after labels “11” & “13”, respectively and --(FIG. 12)-- should be inserted after label “12” such as to be commensurate with the labeling in those drawings. Page 43, in paragraph [0271], first line therein, note that --(FIG. 13)-- should be inserted after “13” for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 52, in paragraph [0317], first line therein, it is noted that --(FIG. 23)-- should be inserted after “L1” for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Throughout the detail description of the drawings, it is noted that at various instances where an individual figure(s) is being described, certain reference labels are described which do not actually appear in the drawing(s) being described. Accordingly, for such circumstances, it is suggested that the non-depicted label(s) be specifically reference to drawing(s) in which such label(s) actually appear in for clarity and completeness of description. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following labels and/or descriptive wording appearing in the indicated drawings need to be correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIG. 1A (~Rm, ~Rm/Q2); FIGS. 1B, 8, 26, 27, “T(°C)”; FIG. 4, “g”; FIG. 5 (First direction, Second direction); FIGS. 8, 26, 27, all descriptive wording therein; FIGS. 23, 24, 34, 35, “<100>”; FIGS. 25, 28, 29, 30, “θ”; FIG. 28 (GPa, [hk1]). Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fastening anchor being connected to a side midpoint or the second sub-resonator being connected to a vertex angle (i.e. claims 8, 20) and the peripheral drive & detection circuits being connected to the drive & detection electrodes (i.e. claims 14 & 17), respectively must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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, 6, 7; 14; 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chodavarapu et al (cited by applicants’).
Chodavarapu et al (i.e. Figures 7A, 7B) disclose a resonator, comprising: a first sub-resonator (i.e. disk shape resonator 710) capable of deformation due to vibration of the resonator (710); a plurality of second sub-resonators (i.e. four ring shape resonators 740) coupled/anchored to the first sub-resonator (710) at a plurality of locations about the periphery of the first sub-resonator (710), such that deformation of the first sub-resonator couples to corresponding deformation in the plurality of second sub-resonators (740). However, Chodavarapu et al differs from the claimed invention in that the first sub-resonator does not have the shape of a square resonator.
It should be noted that Chodavarapu et al, in Figure 12, discloses a disk shape resonator (i.e. resonator 1200B) and a square shape resonator (i.e. resonator (1200A) operable in a Lamé mode) that are recognized as art recognized equivalent resonators, capable of performing the same function (i.e. providing deformation due to vibration of the resonator).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the disk shape resonator (710) to have take an alternative, yet equivalent, form, such as a square shape resonator, such as taught by resonator (1200A) in Chodavarapu et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent resonators that performed the equivalent function (i.e. provide deformations by vibrations in the resonator) with desired modes of vibration dependent on the shape of the resonator, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Note that as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant square shape resonator would necessarily have been capable of vibrating in two directions of the square shape (e.g. along two directions that are perpendicular to each other by virtue of operating in a breathing mode of vibration) consistent with the teaching in Figure 12 of Chodavarapu et al. Regarding claims 6, 7, 19, 20, note that Chodavarapu et al further discloses with respect to Figure 12, that the disk/square resonator (1200B/1200A) can include fastening anchors located at points on the resonator where the vibration is weakest (i.e. 5 anti-nodal points located a 4 peripheral locations (e.g. the 4 corners of the square shape resonator) as well as a central point of the resonator). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the square resonator of the resultant combination to have coupled the fastening anchors at the 4 anti-nodal points (i.e. at the corners or vertices of the square shape resonator), consistent with the teaching in Figure 12 of Chodavarapu et al, while maintaining to locations of the ring-shape second sub-resonators (i.e. at the mid-points along sides of the square shape resonator), consistent with the teaching in Figure 7A &7B of Chodavarapu et al.
Regarding claims 14, 17, note that Figures 7A, 7B further disclose drive electrodes (i.e. D+, D-) and sense electrodes (i.e. S+, S-) associated with the respective second ring-shape resonators, but does not disclose a peripheral drive circuit and a peripheral sense circuit.
Chodavarapu et al (i.e. Figure 3) discloses a peripheral circuit (i.e. network analyzer) that is capable of providing a drive circuit function to drive electrodes (D+, D-) and that is capable of providing a sense circuit function with respect to sense electrodes (S+, S-).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the resultant combination in Chodavarapu et al to have included drive and sense circuits with the square shape first sub-resonator and the plural ring-shape second resonators, such as taught by Figure 3 in Chodavarpu et al. Such a modification provides the advantageous benefit of providing drive and sense circuitry coupled to drive and sense electrodes in the resultant combination, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chodavarapu et al in view of Khine et al (both references cited by applicants’).
As described in the preceding rejection, the resultant combination meets the claimed invention except for first sub-resonator operating in a square extension (i.e. SE) mode.
Khine et al (i.e. Table 1) discloses properties associated with a variety of resonators, including square shape resonators operable in a Lamé mode or operable in the square extension mode.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the square shape resonator of the resultant combination to have been operable in a square extension mode. Such a further modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent modes usable in a square shape resonator, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to BENNY T LEE at telephone number (571)272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
