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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 14-15, 18 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, the last paragraph recites “wherein the clipping control system can block against movement of the at least one movable blade…” that is indefinite and unclear how and what structure or part of the control system is used to block the movable blade.
Reading Applicant’s paragraph 76 clearly recites “the control system 62 can block movement of the blade 24 by disabling the actuator 70. For example, the control system 62 may deny power supply from the power control circuitry for activation of the actuator 70 out from the withdraw position. In some embodiments, any suitable manner of blocking against movement of the blade 24 made be applied, for example but without limitation, denying communication from the activation button 38 to activate the actuator 70”, however, as the claim is written, it appears that the control system physically blocks against movement of the at least one movable blade” that is not clear.
Claim 1, the second last paragraph “sensor system” is unclear whether it refers the previous sensor system or an additional sensor system (since there is no article).
Claim 3, “the at least one blade” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a new blade or the at least one movable blade in claim 1. Claims 4, 7 have the same issue.
Claim 5 “an actuator” is unclear whether it refers one in claim 1 or a further limitation.
The scope of Claim 11 “observation of a predetermined threshold” is unclear. See claim 1 “a predetermined threshold value …for EACH condition…”. Is the predetermined threshold in claim 1 the same predetermined threshold in claim 11, right? Claims 14-15 have the same issue since they depend on claim 1.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer (US 2010/0107989) in view of Huggans (US 2007/0163514).
Regarding claim 1, Manheimer shows a nail clipper (Figure 7), comprising:
a body (6) for grasping by a user’s hand, the body defining a clip space (a front end of the clipper 6) for receiving a subject's nail for clipping,
a clipping control system (Figure 12) including a sensor system (7) and an actuator (see claim 1 “a mechanical actuating means” or 18, Figure 7);
at least one movable blade (a fixed blade10 and a movable blade 13) coupled with the actuator (18) on the body for movement between a withdraw position retracted from the clip space and a clip position extended into the clip space for clipping (Figures 10-11),
wherein the sensor system is configured to distinguish three conditions detect, within the clip space, only (1) shell material only (nail), (2) shell material and non-shell material (nail and quick), and (3) no material (no material other than air) by measuring a predetermined threshold value characteristic for each condition only shell material within the clip space (Para. 60 “The oscillatory frequency is interpreted by a digital processor, as at 24b (see FIG. 12), whose programming differentiates between frequencies arising from interposing air, nail, or nail with underlying quick” (emphasis added), in this case, the thresholds can be frequencies, and also see Para. 15 “Attenuation, phase change, capacitance change, conductivity, or any other change in the signal, attributable to the presence of the quick in the transmission path which differentiates transmission through claw and quick, is used to identify and localize the quick”) and (see Para. 61 that discusses a red is for a presence of quick; a green is presence of nail; a yellow is for presence of quick and nail; and all LEDs linking is for no material other than air),
wherein the predetermined threshold value is detected according to a voltage output generated by one or more photodiodes (LEDs, see the discussion above) of the clipping control system based on infrared light propagated through the clip space (see Para. 15 “… infrared light, … electricity, electrical charge, and electrical fields”).
However, Manheimer fails to discuss that the clipping control system can block against movement of the at least one movable blade out from the withdraw position by (see the discussion issue above) when non-shell material is present in the clip space.
Huggans shows a nail clippers having a controller (microprocessor) that determines safe and unsafe for cutting nails. Huggans also discusses that the microprocessor determines the cutting edge is positioned in an unsafe area … a fail-safe mechanism such as a stop plate, deadbolt or mechanical disengagement of the cutting edge actuator as discussed in Para. 41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the control system of Manheimer to actuate a fail-safe mechanism (a stop plate…), as taught by Huggans, in order to prevent improper cutting nails or prevent any cuts on the quicks.
With regards to “the molar attenuation coefficient ε to be within the range of about 0.1 M-1 cm-1 to about 0.7M-1 cm-1” of the predetermined threshold, this range is an intrinsic property of objects (see both Applicant’s nail clippers and Manheimer’s nail clippers that intend to use for clipping nails of animals), therefore, the molar attenuation coefficient ε provides in the system is intrinsically, in order to allow the control system/sensor to determine whether it is a nail, a quick, or an air that are measured absorbance light by the sensor (see Manheimer’s Para. 28 “a radiation detector ….The attenuation of the electrical output signal when compared with open air attenuation can be interpreted as the opacity of the nail material” and see Huggans’s Para. 49 is used absorbance light to determine whether it is a quick, a nail, or an air). See the Beer-Lambert Law.
Based on the teachings above, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system/sensor to include an observation of the molar attenuation coefficient ε to be within the range of about 0.1 M-1 cm-1 to about 0.7M-1 cm-1 or any reasonable range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (of the molar attenuation coefficient ε) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233., in order to allow detecting whether it is a nail, a quick, or an air in the nail clippers.
Regarding claim 3, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows that the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the at least one blade between the withdraw position and the clip position in response to detection of non-shell material within the clip space (see the modification in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows that the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the at least one blade between the withdraw position and the clip position in response to detection of no material within the clip space (see the discussion above and see Para. 42 of Huggans “ when the system determines it is safe to cut, the cutting device may be activated automatically”. If there is no material, the sensor detects noting and the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the at least one blade and see Manheimer’s Para. 61 “Other light patterns, such as no LEDs lit or all LEDs blinking, indicate operational situations such as … no material other than air in the vicinity of said sensor to the user”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows that the clipping control system (see the discussion in claim 1 above) comprises the actuator (18, Figures 10-11) to permit movement of the at least one blade between the withdraw position and the clip position in response to detection, within the clip space, of only shell material (see Para. 21 of Manheimer “if the green LED is lit, it indicates that only nail material is present near the sensor and the clipper means may safely cut”).
Regarding claim 7, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows that the clipping control system includes an activation button (20a/20b, Figures 10-11 of Manheimer) to cause activation of an actuator (20a, 20b, Figure 7 and Para. 62) for driving the at least one blade for movement out from the withdraw position responsive to user activation of the activation button (as this is written, it is unclear how the blade is driven. See Figure 10, the contacting parts 20a, 20b is provided a power for the sensor to detect whether it is a nail, a quick, or an air for driving the at least one blade for movement out from the withdraw position responsive to user activation of the activation button).
Regarding claim 11, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows the configuration (of the controlling system and the sensor) to detect no material (see the discussion of “air” in claim 1 above) within the clip space includes observation of a predetermined threshold value characteristic for no material within the clip space (Para. 22 of Manheimer “Other light patterns, such as no LEDs lit or all LEDs, blinking indicate operational situations, such as …no material other than air in the vicinity of the sensor”)
Regarding claim 14, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows the sensor system configuration (of the controlling system and the sensor) to detect, within the clip space, only shell material includes observation of the predetermined threshold value characteristic for only shell material within the clip space (Para. 24 of Manheimer “ The sensing means imposes a voltage potential between the blades. Upon contact with the nail material the electrical potential produces a current flow through the nail material. The current flow is then detected and interpreted as either current, voltage drop, or resistance by existing electrical measurement means. The measurement means is then sensibly displayed as visual output by LED or audible output by beeper, tweeter, or horn”).
Regarding claim 15, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows that the sensor system comprises the predetermined threshold value characteristic for only shell material includes a molar attenuation coefficient € (see the discussion in claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 18, the modified clipper of Manheimer shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above except that the range of about 880nm to about 940nm of the IR sensor.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the range of about 880nm to about 940 nm of the IR sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the IR sensor of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233., in order to allow the IR sensor can read and detect the objects and non-object (nail, nail and quick, and air).
Response to Arguments
As the claims are written, there are new rejections by a new art. See above.
With regards to the “molar attenuation coefficient ε to be within the range of about 0.1 M-1 cm-1 to about 0.7M-1 cm-1” see the discussion in claim 1 above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights