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 .
Election/Restrictions
There are currently no withdrawn claims pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 1, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 (lines 8) should recite “a
Claim 1 (line 9) should recite “a quick.”
Claim 1 (line 10) should recite “within the clipping space to reduce a risk of inadvertent damage to the
Claim 6 (line 3) should recite “a user.”
Claim 9 (line 2) should recite “system including a sensor for detecting a presence of a material other than a nail shell within.”
Claim 10 (line 1) should recite “the material is a non-keratin.”
Claim 13 (line 1) should delete the term “subject’s.”
Claim 15 (line 1) should recite “the
Claim 15 (lines 3-4) should recite “…the nail shell causes inactivation of clipping while the
Claim 16 (lines 2-3) should recite “the
Claim 17 (lines 1) should recite “wherein the detection of the quick.”
Claim 17 (line 2) should recite “an indicatora user to a presence of the quick” or similar language.
Claim 18 (line 2) should recite “…the quick within the clip space.”
Claim 20 (lines 2-3) should recite “wherein the nail clipper includes a control system that
Claim 20 (lines 4-5), should recite “wherein an activation button, an indicator, and a lock.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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- 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. Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the clipper can provide detection of the subject’s quick present within the clipping space” is indefinite. The body of the claim defines the clipper as having a body and at least one blade. How does a clipper provide detection? What structure permits the clipper to detect? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term “clipper” is defined as one that clips something; an implement for clipping especially hair, fingernails, or toenails. Based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “clipper” it does not impart any structure which permits detection.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the detection of a subject’s will alert the user” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure is being detected which prompts an alert to the user, since the claim has not properly established a structural relationship. Further regarding claim 13, the limitation appears to recite a step of detecting, rather than the structure for detecting. This limitation would be indefinite, since the preamble is directed to an apparatus and not a method claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the detection of the subject’s quick…wherein said detection is made by the sensor” is indefinite. While the claim recites the structure performing the detection, the sensor is not positively recited; therefore, the claim appears to recite a method step of detecting, rather than (positively) recite the structure which senses.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “the nail clipper can determine” is indefinite. It is unclear what permits a nail clipper the functionality of “determining.” In other words, the claim has not set forth any structure to permit the function of determining. Further regarding claim 16, the limitation appears to recite a step of determining, rather than the structure for determining. This limitation would be indefinite, since the preamble is directed to an apparatus and not a method claim.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the detection of a subject’s quick” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure permits “detection.” In other words, the claim has not set forth any structure to permit the function of detecting. The limitation appears to recite a step of detecting, rather than the structure for detecting. This limitation would be indefinite, since the preamble is directed to an apparatus and not a method claim.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “wherein an activation button, and indicator, a lock are each formed as part of the control system” is indefinite. It is unclear how the above structures are formed as part of the control system. A control system can be designated to control each structure; however, the term “formed” imparts a method step and scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the clipping blade" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 4, recites “at least one blade coupled with the body for movement between a withdraw position retracted from the clip space and a clip position extended into the clip space for clipping.” Line 7 recites “the clipping blade is coupled with the body for movement between a withdraw position and a clip position extended to clip a subject’s nail positioned within the clipping space.” It is unclear if “the clipping blade (in line 7)” is the same or a different blade than the at least one blade (in line 4). It is further unclear if the withdraw and clip positions in line 8 are the same positions in line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,100,088 to Manheimer et al.
In re claim 1, Manheimer teaches a nail clipper, comprising:
a body (6,17,18) for grasping by a user's hand, the body defining a clip space (11,16) for receiving a subject's nail for clipping, and
a clipping system comprising at least one blade (13) coupled with the body for movement between a withdraw position retracted from the clip space and a clip position extended into the clip space for clipping,
wherein the clipping blade (13) is coupled with the body for movement between a withdraw position and a clip position extended to clip a subject's nail positioned within the clipping space, and wherein the clipper can provide detection of the subject's quick present within the clipping space to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage to the subject's quick (Col. 4, lines 17-28).
Note, the clipper merely has to be capable of providing detection of the subject’s quick present within the clipping space (which is taught by Manheimer).
In re claim 5, wherein the nail clipper includes a central portion including a base (as shown in at least Figure 8) forming a rigid portion of the body (Col. 10, lines 54-60), wherein the central portion includes an indicator (8).
In re claim 6, wherein the indicator (8) includes an LED light (Col. 8, lines 14-28) (capable of being) secured on an exterior of the base, wherein the indicator can communicate when clipping operation is available to the user.
In re claim 8, wherein the clipping blade (13) in the withdraw position is a default position for the blade (as shown in at least Figures 7 and 10).
In re claim 9, wherein the nail clipper includes a sensor system including a sensor (7) for detecting the presence of material other than the nail shell within the clip space (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 10, wherein the material is non-keratin material (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 13, as best understood, wherein the detection of a subject's will alert the user by an electrical (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
Note, it has been interpreted the LEDs are electrical. Further, detection merely has to be capable of occurring and alerting a user.
In re claim 14, wherein the sensor (7) can (is capable of) detect the thickness of materials within the clip space (11,16), wherein only detection of the subject's nail shell within the clip space causes clipping to be performed.
Note, the sensor is a capacitor which can sense thickness.
In re claim 15, wherein the detection of the subject's quick within the clip space, wherein said detection is made by the sensor measuring thickness of the quick relative to the nail shell causes inactivation of clipping while the subject's quick is within the clip space (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 16, as best understood, wherein the nail clipper can determine whether the subject's quick is within the clip space to avoid unintended clipping which could injure the subject's quick (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 17, wherein the detection of a subject's quick within the clip space causes an indicator light to alert the user to the presence of quick (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 18, wherein the indicator comprises an LED light configured to illuminate to indicate the presence of quick within the clip space (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication Application No. 20230018641 to McMullen et al.
In re claim 1, McMullen teaches a nail clipper, comprising:
a body (300) for grasping by a user's hand, the body defining a clip space (322) for receiving a subject's nail for clipping, and
a clipping system comprising at least one blade (200) coupled with the body for movement between a withdraw position retracted from the clip space and a clip position extended into the clip space for clipping,
wherein the clipping blade (200) is coupled with the body for movement between a withdraw position and a clip position extended to clip a subject's nail positioned within the clipping space, and wherein the clipper can provide detection of the subject's quick present within the clipping space to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage to the subject's quick (Paras 0080,0081).
In re claim 7, wherein the nail clipper includes an activation button (308) for user activation for clipping.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer in view of US Patent No. 5,065,513 to Reiswig.
In re claims 2-4, Mainheimer teaches a nail clipper having at least one blade (13), but does not teach wherein the at least one blade includes a clip edge having a V-shaped arrangement (Claim 2), wherein the clip edge is defined by a beveled portion of the at least one blade (Claim 3), and wherein the clip edge include at least two opposing portions, wherein at least one of the at least two portions is formed from the beveled portion of the at least one blade (Claim 4).
Reiswig teaches a nail clipper having at least one blade includes a clip edge (32) having a V-shaped arrangement (the slope of the bevel and the bottom surface of the blade form a V-shaped arrangement), wherein the clip edge is defined by a beveled portion ( Col. 3, lines 3-5) of the at least one blade, and wherein the clip edge include at least two opposing portions (the slope of the bevel if a first surface which opposes the bottom surface of the blade form a V-shaped arrangement), wherein at least one of the at least two portions is formed from the beveled portion of the at least one blade (Col. 3, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Manheimer with a blade having a V-shaped arrangement and beveled portion as taught by Reiswig which are advantageous in reducing friction during cutting and allowing for easier material penetration.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer in view of US Patent No. 8,156,900 to Gaunt.
In re claim 11, Manheimer teaches a sensor, but does not teach wherein the sensor is a field sensor configured to generate a magnetic field and to detect changes to the field (claim 11) and wherein the introduction of material within the field cause disturbances to the field which can be detected by the sensor (claim 12).
Gaunt teaches in the art of nail clippers detecting the position of the quick via an ambient of presence of radiated line voltage AC utilized as the source electrode in conjunction with a receptor electrode to permit proper cutting of the quick. Gaunt teaches the sensor is a field sensor configured to generate a magnetic field and to detect changes to the field and wherein the introduction of material within the field cause disturbances to the field which can be detected by the sensor (Col. 1, lines 63-37, Col. 2, lines 1-8, Col. 3, lines 21-56, Col. 4, lines 41-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Manheimer with a field sensor as taught by Gaunt to provide a unique, inexpensive, extremely accurate, and consistent way of locating the position of live tissue (Col. 1, lines 57-62).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer in view of EP3858561 to Rudolf et al. or McMullen et al.
In re claim 19, Manheimer teaches a nail clipper, but does not teach wherein when clipping is permitted the user may actuate the activation button to operate the blade for clipping in the clip space.
Rudolf teaches a clipper having an activation button (122) that activates the drive unit (130) to operate the blades (Pg. 5, lines 3-18) in the clipping space.
McMullen teaches a nail clipper having an activation button (308) to operate the blade for clipping into the clipping space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to automate the blade of Manheimer via a motor and button arrangement as taught by Rudolf or McMullen in order to maintain precise positioning of the blade while providing an easy to use device (Para 0017, McMullen). The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20160066542 to Kearns.
In re claim 20, Manheimer teaches wherein the nail clipper includes a control system that can govern operation of the nail clipper, wherein the control system includes a processor (Col. 8, lines 64-67, Col. 9, lines 1-15) for executing instructions stored on memory, and communication circuitry (Col. 8, lines 29-63) for communicating signals according to direction by the processor, and indicator (8), a lock (23) are each formed as part of the control system, but does not teach an activation button.
Kearns teaches an activation button (42, Para 0014) which controls the operation of the sensors, alert (30), and the battery (Paras 0014,0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the activation of the sensor, alert, and battery arrangement of Manheimer via an activation button as taught by Kearns permitting the user an external and easy to accessible way to activate the sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR960005498 teaches a nail clipper having bevel blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724