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 1-2, 6, and 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8, and 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,195 (the ‘195 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to Claims 1-2, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 6 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claim 6, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 7 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claim 8, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 8 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claims 9-10, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 11 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claim 11, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 12 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claim 12, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 13 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claims 13-14, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 14 of the ‘195 Patent.
As to Claim 15, all the claimed features are recited in Claim 15 of the ‘195 Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7 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: Claim 3 recites the unique features of a projection of the first elastic element or a projection of the second elastic element along the vibration direction of the mass element having two symmetry axes perpendicular to each other. Claim 4 recites the unique features of at least one of the plurality of bar structures including a plurality of segments, and the segments provide shear stresses with opposite curls. Claim 5 recites the unique features of count of the plurality of bar structures of the first elastic element or the second elastic element being four. Claim 7 recites the unique features of the central axis of the second elastic element or the central axis of the first elastic element being parallel to the vibration direction of the mass element. The closest prior art does not disclose or suggest such features.
Claims 16-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 16 recites the unique features of an upper elastic element and a lower elastic element, each of the upper elastic element and the lower elastic element including a plurality of bar structures, and each bar structure including one or more bending regions and the upper elastic element and the lower elastic element are distributed up and down along a vibration direction of the mass element, and a projection of the upper elastic element or the lower elastic element along the vibration direction of the mass element having at least one symmetry axis. The closest prior art does not disclose or suggest such features.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Carolyn Edwards, can be reached on (571) 270-7136. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
