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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2023, 04/20/2023, 06/07/2023 and 03/06/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I-II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCourtney (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0204891)
Regarding claim 12, McCourtney teaches a nail clipper device (10)(Figure 4) comprising;
an actuator (12,40,70) comprising an actuator body (12) comprising an armature (41,71) comprising a cutting assembly (72), wherein the cutting assembly comprises a top blade and a bottom blade (Figure 4), and wherein the actuator includes a coil (Paragraph 0058 noting a solenoid), which receives power from one or more batteries (44)(Figure 4 and Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 13, McCourtney teaches the nail clipper of claim 12, further comprising a sensor and processor (46) that activate the actuator to engage in cutting (Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 15, McCourtney teaches he nail clipper of claim 12, wherein the actuator is inside the nail clipper device (Figure 4 and Paragraph 58 noting channel 15 in which a portion of the element 70 sits within including element 40 inside the nail clipper device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCourtney (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0204891) in view of Hsu (U.S. Patent No. 2011/0005537).
Regarding claim 14, McCourtney teaches the nail clipper of claim 12, but does not provide wherein the one or more batteries is a lithium polymer battery.
Hsu teaches it is known in the art of nail clipping to provide a battery to power elements within the device (paragraph 0006) as lithium cells, mercury oxide cells, alkaline manganese cells, mercury cells, nickel metal hydride cells, and nickel cadmium cells etc. (Paragraph 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of McCourtney to incorporate the teachings of Hsu to provide different types of battery cells. Doing so allows for a variety of battery cell types to be used to power the device as desired by the user.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCourtney (U.S. Patent No. 2012/0204891).
Regarding claims 16 and 17: McCourtney discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. McCourtney further discloses an actuator configured to trim fingernails.
However, McCourtney does not expressly disclose wherein the actuator activates the armature with at least 10 pounds of force or wherein the actuator activates the armature with at least 15 pounds of force.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of McCourtney to have the actuator activate the armature with at least 10 pounds of force and the actuator activate the armature with at least 15 pounds of force since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of McCourtney would not operate differently with the claimed force since actuator is intended to provide a force to trim nails and the device would function appropriately having the claimed actuation force. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that actuation force may be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0015 and 0071-0072]).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-D, F-K on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of nail trimmers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 03/20/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724