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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 in ASN 16/964505.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13, line 23: “…an non-nodal points” should read “…at non-nodal points”
Page 21, line 1: duplicate of the word “of” (…admittance graph of of piezoelectrically)
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 7A and 7B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
Claims 12-13 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “deviates less than 25 degrees”, and the claim also recites “in particular less than 15 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 7-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohanty et al. (US8314665, hereinafter Mohanty).
Regarding claim 1, Mohanty discloses microelectromechanical resonator (Fig. 4), comprising a support structure (402, 408), a resonator element suspended to the support structure, the resonator element comprising a plurality of sub-elements (406, 410), an actuator (Fig. 13, elements 1302, 1304) for exciting the resonator element into a resonance mode, wherein the sub-elements (406, 410) are dimensioned such that they are dividable in one direction into one or more fundamental elements having an aspect ratio different from 1 (length longer than the width) so that each of the fundamental elements supports a fundamental resonance mode, the sub-elements are coupled to each other by connection elements (404, 412) and positioned with respect to each other such that said resonance mode of the resonator element is a collective resonance mode. See abstract and column 3:10-33.
Regarding claim 7, Mohanty discloses that it is possible to provide elements with different frequencies (Col. 6:56-58).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 14, in column 3:30-33, Mohanty discloses types of vibration depending on the dimensions, material and coupling mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, Mohanty shows the sub-elements separated from each other by intermediate zones (open space between paddle elements 406 and 410), each of the intermediate zones comprising at least one elongated trench and at least two connection elements (404, 412) abutting the trench and mechanically coupling the sub-elements to each other.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohanty.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Mohanty discloses the invention as explained above, but fails to explicitly disclose the use of a single silicon crystal doped to a specific average impurity or the particular orientation of the crystal body. Mohanty discloses the use silicon to form the resonator and discloses the vibration characteristics depending from the material used to form the resonator, among others. Therefore, it is the examiner's position that selecting the specific material and/or orientation are an obvious matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the specific material and crystal orientation in order to obtain the desired vibration characteristics of the resonator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The references of the Prior Art fail to teach or disclose, alone or in obvious combination, the claimed invention as described in claim 2, specifically, the at least two different types of said sub-elements, the first type having a first length corresponding to a first number of fundamental elements and the second type having a second length corresponding to a second number of fundamental elements, the second length and second number amounting to an integer fraction of the first length and first amount of the first type.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaydi San Martin whose telephone number is (571)272-2018. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:45-6:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on 571-270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. San Martin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights