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 .
Specification
The amendment filed April 21, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 1 (lines 9-10) recites “wherein the clipper includes a clipping control system including a sensor system in a body frame within the clip space” which is new matter. Page 15, [Para 0089] discloses “Returning briefly to FIG. 2, the sensor 40 is illustratively positioned rearward of the frame 42. The sensor 40 is arranged on a side of the frame 42 opposite the blade 24. As the sensor 40 is opposite the blade 24, the sensor 40 is arranged to detect the presence of the quick just at the opening of the clip space 22 to protect against entry of the quick into the clip space 22 without detection. In some embodiments, the sensor 40 may be arranged with any suitable position for detecting the presence of non-shell material within the clip space 22, for example but without limitation, on the same side of the frame as the blade.” The details of Para [0089] discloses the sensor positioned rearward of the frame and does not set forth any details to the sensor system in a body frame within the clip space. Figure 2 further supports Para [0089] in that the sensor is arranged rearwardly on the frame and on a side of the frame. How is the sensor system in the frame body within the clip space? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term space is defined as “a blank area separating words or lines. Per the BRI of the term “space,” the clip space is a blank area. Per the disclosed Figures, there does not appear to be a sensor system within the clip space. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 (lines 9-10), should recite “and wherein the clipper includes a clipping control system including a sensor system in a
Claim 13 (line 2), should recite “detection of the quick.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 (lines 9-10) recites “wherein the clipper includes a clipping control system including a sensor system in a body frame within the clip space” which was not describe in the specification in a way as to reasonably convey to one skill in the art the inventor had possession at the time of filing and is new matter. Page 15, [Para 0089] discloses “Returning briefly to FIG. 2, the sensor 40 is illustratively positioned rearward of the frame 42. The sensor 40 is arranged on a side of the frame 42 opposite the blade 24. As the sensor 40 is opposite the blade 24, the sensor 40 is arranged to detect the presence of the quick just at the opening of the clip space 22 to protect against entry of the quick into the clip space 22 without detection. In some embodiments, the sensor 40 may be arranged with any suitable position for detecting the presence of non-shell material within the clip space 22, for example but without limitation, on the same side of the frame as the blade.” The details of Para [0089] discloses the sensor positioned rearward of the frame and does not set forth any details to the sensor system in a body frame within the clip space. Figure 2 further supports Para [0089] in that the sensor is arranged rearwardly on the frame and on a side of the frame. How is the sensor system in the frame body within the clip space? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term space is defined as “a blank area separating words or lines. Per the BRI of the term “space,” the clip space is a blank area. Per the disclosed Figures, there does not appear to be a sensor system within the clip space.
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 is rejected, as best understood, 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, as best understood, Manheimer teaches a nail clipping device, 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 nail positioned within the clipping space, and wherein the clipper includes a clipping control system (24) including a sensor system (7) in a body frame (as shown in at least Figure 11) within the clip space (as shown in at least Figure 11) to provide detection of a quick present within the clipping space to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage to the subject's quick (Col. 4, lines 17-28) ,wherein the clipping control system (24) (is capable of) controls an electronic actuator to prevent movement of the clipping blade from a withdraw position, responsive to detection of non-shell material within the clip space.
Note, the clipping control system merely has to capable of controlling an electronic actuator to prevent movement of the clipping blade from a withdraw position, responsive to detection of non-shell material within the clip space, in which it is (a circuit can control an electronic actuator).
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, 5-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer et al. in view of US Patent Publication Application No. 20230018641 to McMullen et al. or EP3858561 to Rudolf et al.
In re claim 1, as best understood, Manheimer teaches a nail clipping device, 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 nail positioned within the clipping space, and wherein the clipper includes a clipping control system (24) including a sensor system (7) in a body frame (as shown in at least Figure 11) within the clip space (as shown in at least Figure 11) to provide detection of a quick present within the clipping space to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage to the subject's quick (Col. 4, lines 17-28) ,wherein the clipping control system (24) (is capable of) controls an electronic actuator to prevent movement of the clipping blade from a withdraw position, responsive to detection of non-shell material within the clip space.
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 a 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 a 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 a non-keratin material (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 13, wherein the detection of quick 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 quick within the clip space is (capable of being) made by the sensor measuring thickness of the quick relative to the nail shell causes inactivation of clipping while the quick is within the clip space (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 16, wherein the sensor system (is capable of) can determine whether the quick is within the clip space to avoid unintended clipping which could injure the quick (Col. 8, lines 14-28).
In re claim 17, wherein the detection of the quick within the clip space by the sensor system causes an indicator to alert a user to a presence of the 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).
In re claim 20, wherein the nail clipper includes a control system that 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.
Regarding claim 1, in the event one may argue, Manheimer does not teach a control system controlling an electronic actuator. McMullen teaches a clipper having a control system (Para 0091) for controlling an electronic actuator (motor, Para 0091) to control the operation of the blade. Rudolf teaches a nail clipper having a control system (118) for controlling an electronic actuator (112,130) to control the operation of the bade (102, 104).
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 control system and electronic actuator as taught by McMullen or Rudolph 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).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, modified Manheimer teaches a clipper having a control system and an electronic actuator, but does not teach wherein the nail clipper includes an activation button for user activation for clipping (claim 7) and wherein when clipping is permitted the user may actuate the activation button to operate the blade for clipping in the clip space (claim 19).
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 provide the device of modified Manheimer with an activation button as taught by McMullen or Rudolf which is advantageous for preventing accidental operation of the device while also permitting quick cutting when on.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manheimer in view of McMullen or Rudolph, as applied in the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 5,065,513 to Reiswig.
In re claims 2-4, modified Manheimer teaches a nail clipper having at least one blade (13, Manheimer), 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 modified 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 McMullen or Rudolph, as applied in the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 8,156,900 to Gaunt.
In re claim 11, modified 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 modified 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).
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed October 21, 2025 have been obviated by the amendments field April 21, 2026.
The 112, second paragraph rejections in the Office Action mailed October 21, 2025 have been overcome by the amendments filed April 21, 2026.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights