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 .
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 24-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825.
Claims 24, 26, and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claims 24, 26, and 27 of the present invention.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claims 25 and 28 of the present invention.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 29 of the present invention.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 30 of the present invention.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 31 of the present invention.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 32 of the present invention.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 33 of the present invention.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 34 of the present invention.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 35 of the present invention.
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 36 of the present invention.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 37 of the present invention.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 38 of the present invention.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 39 of the present invention.
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 40 of the present invention.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 41 of the present invention.
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,976,825 recites all the limitations in claim 42 of the present invention.
Claims 24-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claims 24 and 26 of the present invention.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claims 25 and 28 of the present invention.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 27 of the present invention.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 29 of the present invention.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 30 of the present invention.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 31 of the present invention.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 32 of the present invention.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 33 of the present invention.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 34 of the present invention.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 35 of the present invention.
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 36 of the present invention.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 37 of the present invention.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 38 of the present invention.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 39 of the present invention.
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 40 of the present invention.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 41 of the present invention.
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,057 recites all the limitations in claim 42 of the present invention.
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(s) 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buuck (US 9,329,721).
Regarding claim 37, Buuck discloses a device comprising:
an input sensor system 104;
a vibrational output system 106;
a controller 110, 202, 214, 208, 216, configured to control operation of the vibrational output system 106 and/or the input sensor system 104 , wherein the controller comprises:
an input configured to receive an indication of vibration (S. 702-704, col. 11, lines 6-20); and
an adjustment module 110, 214, 216, configured to adjust operation of the vibrational output system and/or operation of the input sensor system based on the indication to reduce an interference expected to be caused by the vibration (S. 706, col. 11, lines 21-34, col. 9, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 38, Buuck discloses wherein the vibrational output system comprises a haptic output system configured to provide a haptic output 106.
Regarding claim 39, Buuck discloses wherein the input sensor system comprises at least one force sensor selected from one or more of: a capacitive displacement sensor; an inductive force sensor; a strain gauge; a piezoelectric force sensor; a force resisting sensor; a piezoresistive force sensor; a thin film force sensor; and a quantum tunnelling composite-based force sensor (col. 4, lines 49-59).
Regarding claim 40, Buuck discloses wherein the input sensor system comprises at least one sensor selected from: an accelerometer; a gyroscope; a microphone transducer; a camera; an optical sensor; and an ultrasonic sensor (col. 4, lines 49-59).
Answers to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on December 05, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed December 05, 2025, with respect to claim 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed December 05, 2025, with respect to claim 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 of claim 35 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed December 05, 2025, with respect to claims 24-26, 29, 31-36, 41, and 42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 24-26, 29, 31-36, 41, and 42 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 37-40 have been considered but are moot because limitations in claim 37 are different from limitations in claims 24, 41, and 42.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
March 19, 2026