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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 – 36, 38 – 43 and 47 – 50 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The multiple references on the IDS and the 892 and do not fairly teach or disclose alone or in combination the highlighted portions below.
35. (Original) A device, comprising:
a housing;
a piezoelectric component; and
a support assembly configured to support the piezoelectric component in the housing, wherein
the support assembly includes a spring, wherein the spring is, with respect to a cross- section lying on and parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device, in at least three-point contact or three-line contact with other components of the support assembly.
43. (Original) A device, comprising:
a housing;
a piezoelectric component having a maximum dimension; and
a spring, wherein
the piezoelectric component is supported by the spring, and
the spring extends along an axis that runs substantially parallel to the maximum dimension.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 51 - 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(2)(a) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0124530 (Berg et al.).
Bergs teaches a device (fig. 9), comprising:
a housing (paragraph [17], FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram of a portion of the cross-section of the exemplary embodiment depicted in FIG. 8; paragraph [47], housing 854);
a piezoelectric component having a maximum dimension (paragraph [48], As can be seen, the piezoelectric material 855 is coated with a coating, thereby establishing the piezoelectric component. );
a spring (paragraph [48], The piezoelectric component 855 is clamped between two springs 910 and 920.), wherein
the piezoelectric component is supported by the spring (paragraph [48], The piezoelectric component 855 is clamped [supported] between two springs 910 and 920.), and
the spring has a curved major axis (paragraph [51], While the springs 910 and 920 have been depicted as coil springs, as will be seen below, in some exemplary embodiments, other types of springs can be utilized, such as leaf springs [curved major axis i.e. semi-elliptical shape] and Belleville springs.).
With respect to claims 52 and 54 – 57, note paragraph [51].
With respect to claim 53, note at least the Abstract.
.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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 51 – 57 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,432,084. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims only differ by small and obvious word and/or phrase changes. For example, both the instant claims and the claims of the patent teach a medical device having a housing, a piezoelectric component and a spring. The main difference is that the instant claims disclose a spring which is curved while the patent discloses a leaf spring. It is noted that a leaf spring is curved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272 - 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 -7484.
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 https://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).
03Apr2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights