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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Applicant Remarks (filed on 12/19/2025), with respect to claims 1 and 5 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections in view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive, as they do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the guiding part has a thickness gradually decreasing from the center of the adhesive surface towards the two edges of the adhesive surface along the width direction”; it is unclear if it is the guiding part the structure that has a thickness gradually decreasing from the center of the adhesive surface towards the two edges of the adhesive surface along the width direction, or if it is the adhesive surface itself the structure that has said gradually decreasing thickness. A review of the Specification appears to indicate that “the adhesion pattern has a protruded shape, and the height of the adhesion pattern becomes decreasing gradually along the longitudinal direction or the width direction” ([0012]).
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and
the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180095421 A) in view of Jaegal (KR 20140103408 A), in view of Han (US 20160029767 A1), further in view of Straub (US 4824702 A), as evidenced by Ladd-Kimbrough (US 20190045903 A1); see the translations attached to the Office Action filed on 09/29/2025).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Lee’s Annotated Figure 1b.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
677
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
613
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Lee’s Annotated Figure 2.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
694
1454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3. Lee’s Annotated Figure 2)]
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an artificial nail (Figure 1B and Translation 2: [0001]) comprising: an exposed part (12) exposed to an outside; an adhesive surface (surface 14 facing the natural nail N / N, as shown in Fig. 1B) capable of being adhered on a real nail; two or more adhesion patterns formed on the adhesive surface (pattern 18a-18b formed in a checkerboard shape; Translation 2: [0034]), the adhesion patterns having a height (shown in Figures 2A-B); a base part; and a guiding part formed between the adhesion surface and the base part (Lee’s Annotated Figure 1b, above), wherein the guiding part has a groove shape (groove shape since the interior surface of the artificial nail has a concave shape that creates a groove) extending with a determined width along a width direction of the adhesive surface (as shown in the Annotated Figure).
Wherein the height of the adhesion patterns decreases gradually from a center of the adhesive surface towards two edges of the adhesive surface along the width direction of the adhesive surface, wherein the height of the adhesion patterns decreases gradually from the guiding part towards an end of the adhesive surface along a longitudinal direction of the adhesive surface (please see Lee’s Annotated Figures 2 & 4 above). The Examiner notes that the longitudinal end portions of the adhesive surface (pattern 18a-18b formed in a checkerboard shape) are formed so as to be shallower than the middle portion in the longitudinal direction with respect to the surface of the guiding part (as shown in the Annotated Figure above). See also page 5, paragraph 4, of the Translation 1.
Wherein the adhesive surface (14 facing the natural nail N / N, as shown in Fig. 1B) and the guiding part have a curved surface along the width direction (since as shown in the Annotated Figure, said parts have a curved surface that follows/resemble the natural curvature of a nail).
Lee discloses a gradient of the adhesion patterns decreasing in height from the guiding part towards an end of the adhesive surface, as explained above, but fails to specifically disclose that “the guiding part … has a thickness thinner than that of the base part”, “and the guiding part has a thickness gradually decreasing from the center of the adhesive surface towards the two edges of the adhesive surface along the width direction”, and “wherein a cross-section of the adhesion patterns is a circle”.
Jaegal discloses an artificial nail (Figure 3B, [0001]) comprising a thickness that decreases from the first end (12), which refers to the end that is attached close to the cuticle, and the second end (14), which refers to the free edge or “nail tip” (see [0017], [0022] and Figure 3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Lee’s artificial nail to make it comprising a thickness that decreases from the first end (i.e. the base) to the free end, since such modification would follow the anatomical structures of a real nail, as evidenced by Ladd-Kimbrough (see Figure 1B and [0005]), making the artificial nail natural and compatible.
Therefore, Lee and Jaegal, as combined above, discloses the guiding part has a thickness thinner than that of the base part, since the base part would be the thickest part of the artificial nail and the guiding part being the next part of the nail in the direction towards the free end would be thinner.
Han discloses an artificial nail (Figure 1, [0057]) comprising a thickness that, with respect to its width, tapers (e.g., decreases) from a maximum thickness (128, Figure 7) along its width in its central region towards its side edges [0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Lee’s artificial nail to make it comprising the guiding part having a thickness gradually decreasing from the center of the adhesive surface towards the two edges of the adhesive surface along the width direction, since such modification would add flexibility to the artificial nail, making it easier to conform to the shape of the natural nail.
Straub discloses a false fingernail system (claim 10 and Figure 3), comprising a pattern of adhesive that is used to apply/adhered to finger using said adhesive pattern (col 3, lines 8-10); wherein a cross-section of the adhesion patterns is a circle (since the adhesive is applied in a dot pattern, col 2, line 8 to col 3, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Lee’s artificial nail to make the cross-section of the adhesion pattern a circle, since such modification would require a simple change of shape, which is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed adhesive pattern was significant (MPEP 2144).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Jaegal, in view of Han, further in view of Straub, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giron (US 20190104823 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, Jaegal, Han and Straub, as combined above, discloses the artificial nail made of a synthetic resin material (Lee: [0001]), but fails to specifically disclose “wherein at least one portion of the artificial nail is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a polyurethane, an acryl, a polypropylene and a polyethylene”.
However, Giron discloses an artificial nail and its method of manufacturing (Abstract), wherein at least one portion of the artificial nail is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, a polyurethane, an acryl, a polypropylene and a polyethylene (since it is made of a polyethylene [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee/Jaegal/Han/Straub’s nail to make it of a polyethylene, since such modification would make the artificial nail of a thermoplastic polymer which softens when hot and which can be molded while retaining its shape after cooling ([0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST).
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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. 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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772