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 .
Status Of Claims
This Office Action is in response to an amendment received 8/13/2026 in which Applicant lists claims 1-20 as being cancelled, claims 22-23, 25-27, 29-31, 33-35, 37, 39-40 as being previously presented, and claims 21, 24, 28, 32, 36, 38 as being currently amended. It is interpreted by the examiner that claims 21-40 are pending.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, they are reminded of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Regarding Applicant’s request that the double patenting rejection(s) be held in abeyance until the claims are found to be allowable, this request is a non-responsive improper request since only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Per M.P.E.P. section 804(I)(B)(1) Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections:
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI, for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. [Emphasis added]
If two (or more) pending applications are filed, in each of which a rejection of one claimed invention over the other on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) is proper, the provisional NSDP rejection will be made in each application. Where there are three applications containing claims that conflict such that a provisional NSDP rejection is made in each application based upon the other two, and it is necessary to file terminal disclaimers to overcome the rejections, it is not sufficient to file a terminal disclaimer in only one of the applications addressing the other two applications. Rather, an appropriate terminal disclaimer must be filed in at least two of the applications to require common ownership or enforcement for all three applications. A terminal disclaimer may be required in each of the three applications in certain situations. See subsections (a)-(c) below. See also MPEP § 1490, subsection VI.D.
Additionally, see M.P.E.P. section 714.02 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111 regarding fully responsive replies to a non-final Office action.
Additionally, Per M.P.E.P. section 804.02(VI):
If a terminal disclaimer is filed in an application in which the claims are then canceled or otherwise shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims, the terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before issuance of the patent by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer may not be withdrawn after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1490, subsection VIII, for a complete discussion of withdrawal of a terminal disclaimer.
Additionally, Per M.P.E.P. 714.12 and 37 C.F.R. 1.116 Amendments and affidavits or other evidence after final action and prior to appeal:
(b) After a final rejection or other final action (§ 1.113 ) in an application or in an ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510, or an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949 ) in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal (§ 41.31 or § 41.61 of this title):
(1) An amendment may be made canceling claims or complying with any requirement of form expressly set forth in a previous Office action;
(2) An amendment presenting rejected claims in better form for consideration on appeal may be admitted; or
(3) An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.
(e) An affidavit or other evidence submitted after a final rejection or other final action (§ 1.113 ) in an application or in an ex parte reexamination filed under § 1.510, or an action closing prosecution (§ 1.949 ) in an inter partes reexamination filed under § 1.913 but before or on the same date of filing an appeal (§ 41.31 or § 41.61 of this title), may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented. [Emphasis added]
Additionally, Per M.P.E.P. 717.01(f) and 715.09 Timely Presentation:
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.131(a) must be timely presented in order to be admitted. Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.131(a) and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted:
(A) prior to a final rejection;
(B) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection;
(C) after final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or
(D) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) in a design application. [Emphasis added]
Claim Objections
The amendments to the claims dated 8/13/2026 are accepted. The objections to the claims cited in the office action mailed 5/14/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims dated 8/13/2026 are accepted. The rejections of the claims made under 35 USC 112(b) and cited in the office action mailed 5/14/2026 are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to Park et al. (US 2023/0072601 A1, of record) not disclosing that “a wire that extends, in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, from an attachment point on the one or more springs to a stationary structure” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0072601 A1, of record) are hereby withdrawn.
It is noted that no terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome the remaining nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) in view of U.S. 12,111,452 B2. As such amended nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) are again set forth below which pertain to the amended claims. The Examiner called and left a message with Applicant’s representatives on 9/14/2026 to try and resolve the outstanding double patenting rejection(s), but this call was not returned.
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 21-22, 25, 28-29, 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, of record. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely broader than or an obvious variation of at least claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2.
Regarding claim 21 of the instant application, see at least claims 4, 2 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, which recite all of the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22 of the instant application, see at least claims 4, 2 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, which recite all of the limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 25 of the instant application, see at least claims 4, 2 and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, which recite all of the limitations of claim 25.
Regarding claim 28 of the instant application, see at least claims 4, 2 and 1, or claims 12, 9 and 8, of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, which recite all of the limitations of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29 of the instant application, see at least claims 4, 2 and 1, or claims 12, 9 and 8, of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, which recite all of the limitations of claim 29.
Regarding claim 33 of the instant application, see at least claims 4, 2 and 1, or claims 12, 9 and 8, of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,452 B2, which recite all of the limitations of claim 33.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24, 26-27, 30-32, 34-35 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.
Claims 36-40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 36 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a wire that extends, in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, from an attachment point on the one or more springs to a stationary structure, as generally set forth in claim 36, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 36. The attachment point is shown in figures 2A-3B, and described in at least paragraph [0035] of the original specification as the attachment point on the one or more springs as a solder joint.
Claims 37-40 depend from claim 36 and therefore are allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 36.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/18/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights