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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, the last paragraph recites “wherein the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the blade out from the withdraw position in the presence of non-shell material or the absence of any material” that is not comply with the written description requirement of the original specification.
See Applicant’s specification, Paras. 6-7 “The clipping control system may be configured to block against 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…” that is not what the last paragraph of claim 1 is trying to claim as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art. Also, see the 112b discussion below.
All claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent from rejected parent claim.
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, 14-18 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 recites “a nail clipper, comprising a body…a clipping control system including a sensor system, comprising: at least one blade…” that is unclear. A clipper inherently has a movable blade and a stationary blade. However, as it is written, it appears that the clipping control system comprises at least one blade. Thus, it is indefinite.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “at least one blade coupled with the body for movement …” and later the last line recites “wherein the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the blade out from the withdraw position…” that is indefinite and unclear. First, the “at least one blade …for movement” is unclear how and what structure of the body or a coupling between the blade and the body cause movement of the blade. Reading Applicant’s paragraph 7 clearly recites “enabling operation of an actuator for driving the at least one blade for movement out from the withdraw position”, therefore, the actuator is for blade movement, NOT the at least one blade coupled with the body is for movement.
Second, the last line recites “wherein the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the blade out from the withdraw position in the presence of non-shell material or the absence of any material” that is unclear what it is actually tried to claim. If the operator is not using the clipper to clip any material, the control system will NOT initiate blade movement, right? Reading Applicant’s paragraph 59 “an activation for user activation for clipping …the button 38 to initiate clipping”, therefore, it is unclear whether the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the blade out from the withdraw position in the presence of non-shell material or the absence of any material” or not since the specification is conflicted it.
Reading Applicant’s Para. 6 recites “The clipping control system may be configured to block against 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” and later Paragraph 7 recites “….detection of no material within the clip space”.
It clearly is that the clipping control system is configured to block against movement of the at least one blade between the withdraw position and the clip position in response to detection of non-shell material or the absence of any material within the clip space, NOT “wherein the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the blade out from the withdraw position in the presence of non-shell material or the absence of any material”. Thus, it is unclear. The scope of Claims 3-4 have the similar issue of claim 1.
Also, “the blade” in the last sentence of claim 1 lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers one of the at least one blade or the at least one blade or an additional blade.
Claim 1, the last line “the presence of non-shell material or the absence of any material” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether both limitations refer new situations or inherent situations in previous lines in claim 1. Also, the term “the absence of any material” is unclear. Any empty space or air is still having material even it is invisible. Claim 11 has the same issue.
Claim 7 “the actuator” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it inherently refers one in claim 1 or a further limitation.
The scope of Claim 11 “wherein configuration to detect no material …” is unclear whether this configuration refers to the clipping control system with the sensor in claim 1 or an additional configuration since it is NOT defined in the claim. Also, it is unclear what is observation of a predetermined threshold. See claim 1 “by measuring a predetermined threshold value …for EACH condition”. Is the threshold in claim 1 the same threshold in claim 11, right?
Claims 14-15 depend on claim 1. Thus, both claims have the similar issue of claim 11.
The scope of Claim 17 recites “the clipping control system …using infrared light propagated through the clip space” which is unclear and redundant and NOT “further configured to detect…” since Claim 1 already recites “measuring a predetermined threshold…for EACH condition” (see 3 conditions in claim 1) and later recites “the predetermined threshold value is detected…based on infrared light propagated through the clip space”.
Also, it is unclear whether the “infrared light propagated through the clip space” of claim 17 refers to the infrared light propagated through the clip space in claim 1 or an additional infrared light propagated through the clip space. Claim 18 has the same issue.
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.
Examiner’s notice
In an attempt to overcome the prior art rejections by the art and previous issues, Applicant has amended to the claims that have many issues arisen (see the 112 b issues above), Therefore, Examiner does not know how the issues will be overcome. Therefore, the rejections below are as best understood interpretations for expediting prosecution.
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, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Manheimer (US 2010/0107989) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Manheimer (US 2010/0107989).
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)
at least one blade (a fixed blade10 and a movable blade 13) coupled or connected with an 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”, and
wherein the clipping control system will not initiate movement of the at least one blade out from the withdraw position in the presence of non-shell material or the absence of any material (see the discussion above for no material other than air or quick. Please note that the controlling system won’t initiate any movement of the blade; it is initiate indicators “red, green, yellow, or linking” to the user who can actuate or trigger the blade).
If one still argues that Manheimer’s clipper is implicitly stated “predetermined threshold”, please note that a controller with a sensor absolutely use predetermined thresholds which are crucial settings defining values or points for measurements or comparations between actual values for sending different alerts or changing different LED states to the user as discussed in Paras. 60-61 of Manheimer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have predetermined thresholds in the clipping control system of Manheimer’s, in order to allow the control system to identify air, nail, or nail with underlying quick and properly send signals of LEDs to the user as discussed in Paras. 60-61.
Regarding claim 3, 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 discussion above and see Para. 21).
Regarding claim 4, 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. 21).
Regarding claim 5, Manheimer shows that the clipping control system (see the discussion in claim 1 above) comprises an 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 “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, Manheimer shows that the clipping control system includes an activation button (18, Figures 10-11) to cause activation of an actuator (20a, 20b, Figure 7 and Paras. 59 and 62) 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, 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 “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, Manheimer shows the configuration (of the controlling system and the sensor) to detect, within the clip space, only shell material includes observation of a predetermined threshold value characteristic for only shell material within the clip space (Para. 24 “ 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, Manheimer shows that the predetermined threshold value characteristic for only shell material includes a molar attenuation coefficient € (as it is unclear what the molar attenuation coefficient is, therefore, see paras 26 and 28 “attenuation” which meets the limitation and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation for inherently coefficient).
Regarding claim 17, Manheimer shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, 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
It appears there is no argument from Applicant.
As the claims are written, there are new rejections by a new art. See 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
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 12/5/2025