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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments filed November 7, 2025. Claims 1, 9, 20, 31, 36, and 38-39 are amended. Claim 43 is added. Claims 1-43 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome the drawing objection. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 9 and 20 have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claim 39 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
While the claims are written as “amended” on pages 2 and 10, there appears to be no amendment to claim 39 between the latest set of claims and the original. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-42 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments are only directed to the claim amendments, which add new limitations to the claims and are addressed below.
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.
Claim 39 is 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 39, the claim contains the following limitations:
move the end effector away from the placement area to perform a tool replacement to remove a first tool of the one or more tools and replace it with a second tool of the one or more tools, wherein the second tool is moved back into position at the placement area for additional nail shaping.
The issue with the claim is that the second tool of the one or more tools is moved back into position at the placement area for additional nail shaping after a first tool of the one or more tools is removed. Independent claim 31, where claim 39 is dependent of, does not give any mention about the original position about at the original position of the second tool of the one or more tools, leading to an indefinite case because it is unclear how the second tool is “moved back into position at the placement area for additional nail shaping” when the second tool was never first in position at the placement area. Examiner interprets this claim as intended without the mention of moving the second tool “back”. Specifically, this claim is interpreted as: “move the end effector away from the placement area to perform a tool replacement to remove a first tool of the one or more tools and replace it with a second tool of the one or more tools, wherein the second tool is moved into position at the placement area for additional shaping”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 26-32, 36-40, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10426244B2 (Papshev) in view of “AI Nails It: Viral Manicure Robot Powered by GPU-Accelerated Computer Vision” (Salian).
Regarding claim 1, Papshev discloses a system, comprising:
a placement area configured for a user to place at least one digit having a nail;
Papshev discloses, in Fig. 1, a fingerprint reader 108 “advantageously arranged in the connection with a finger supporting or holding means 301.” (column 7, lines 42-45).
a motion platform adjacent the placement area;
See Fig. 1 of Papshev. Papshev discloses holding means 301 acts as the placement area and the motion platform comprises of manipulation means 101 (column 7, lines 59-61, “The controlling means may control for example the movements and operational parameters (like dispensing and timing parameters) of the manipulation means,”).
an end effector movably connected to the motion platform and positioned near the placement area, the end effector comprising one or more tools for nail shaping;
See Fig. 1 of Papshev. Papshev discloses the motion platform comprising of manipulation means 101. The manipulation means comprising of at least the end effectors of 102 to 105 (see Fig. 1 and column 6, lines 56-65, manipulation means 101, 3D printer 102, dispenser 103, and curing unit 104), where the motion platform is moved by the controlling means (column 7, lines 59-62, “The controlling means may control for example the movements and operational parameters (like dispensing and timing parameters) of the manipulation means, such as 2D/3D printer, dispenser, scanning or imaging means, UV radiators, airbrush and selection of material to be used for object production, as an example.”). In particular, Pasphev disclose the device “is configured to perform one or more of: X, Y, and Z directional, and rotational movements of said manipulation device.” (column 12, claim 14).
one or more sensors near the designated placement area and configured for scanning the nail of the user to generate a sensor representation for the nail;
Papshev, column 7, lines 29-34, “The system comprises also the shape information providing means 107 for providing nail information of a shape and/or position of the nail to be manipulated. The shape information providing means may be a camera or scanner, e.g. laser scanner, or mechanical scanner, which determines the position and shape of the nail to be manipulated.”
an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained for receiving as input the sensor representation of the nail and for inscribing a selected nail shape onto the sensor representation, the AI model configured to output at least one indicator of an amount of nail material to be removed from the nail to achieve the selected nail; and
While Papshev discloses receiving as input the sensor representation of the nail (Fig. 6, step 602 “nail scanning”), inscribing a selected nail shape onto the sensor representation (Fig. 6, step 604 “modelling”), and outputting at least one indicator of an amount of nail material to be removed from the nail to achieve the selected nail (Fig. 6, step 606, where column 10, lines 21-25 specify the use of modelling data for controlling manipulation means and said manipulation includes mechanical operations such as grinding as seen in column 2, lines 21-26.), Papshev does not disclose an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to perform the above.
From a similar field of endeavor, Salian discloses a robot utilizing AI for nail shaping, where cameras are used to capture sensor representation of the nail to provide a nail painting service within a 0.3 mm accuracy. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system disclosed by Salian to the system of Papshev as the system would remove the requirement of a nail library (Fig. 6, step 603 “library”) that acts as a database of exemplary nails that corresponds to the shape to be manipulated (column 3, lines 17-21), minimizing the storage requirements of Papshev and improve costs.
a path planning model configured to receive the output of the AI model and to plan a path of movement for the end effector to shape the nail based on the output of the AI model, the end effector configured to move on the motion platform into position based on the planned path for applying the one or more tools to the nail to shape the nail.
While Papshev discloses a path planning model to plan a path of movement for the end effector to shape the nail based on an output, where the end effector is configured to move on the motion platform into position based on the planned path for applying the one or more tools to the nail to shape the nail (column 10, lines 10-25, “In step 604 the system is configured to provide a modelling for matching said object data, e.g. image from step 603 to shape of the nail provided in step 602. This modelling data (electronic file) is also personal information, where a certain image data and personal shape data of the nail is combined. The modelling data is according to an example analogously with CAM manufacturing file (CAM; computer numerical control file) controlling a CNC machine (CNC; computer-aided manufacturing machine). Also the modelling data can be stored e.g. to a database of the system as a personal modelled file for manufacturing a certain object. The modelling data comprises advantageously said first and second data. Thus according to an example the system may use said modelling data for controlling said manipulation means when manipulating, such as printing the object in step 605.”), Papshev does not disclose receiving an output of an AI model to accomplish the above.
In light of the rationale regarding “an artificial intelligence (AI) …”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system disclosed by Salian to the system of Papshev as the AI model of Salian is shown to move an end effector into positions along a path to fulfill the shaping needs of a user, where integrating said AI model to Papshev would remove the CAM/CNC modelling data attributed to select nail shapes within Papshev’s modeling library to improve costs.
Regarding claim 2, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more cameras.
See Fig. 1 of Papshev, where the figure discloses a camera 107.
Regarding claim 3, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a 3D sensor suite.
Papshev, column 7, lines 29-45, “The system comprises also the shape information providing means 107 for providing nail information of a shape and/or position of the nail to be manipulated. The shape information providing means may be a camera or scanner, e.g. laser scanner, or mechanical scanner, which determines the position and shape of the nail to be manipulated. It is to be understood that the shape information providing means 107 may also comprise a capacitive, RF, ultrasound or microwave scanning means or combination of the above configured to scan at least the 2D or 3D shape and/or position of the nail to be manipulated.”
Regarding claim 4, with respect to all the limitations of claim 3, the system further discloses:
wherein 3D sensor suite comprises one or more cameras capable of generating a 3D spatial point cloud.
See previous citations regarding claim 3, specifically the use of a number of cameras for 3D shape information.
Regarding claim 5, with respect to all the limitations of claim 4, the system further discloses:
wherein the sensor representation comprises one or more images of the nail to be shaped, and
Papshev, column 2, lines 36-39, “According to an embodiment the shape information providing means is an imaging means, such as a camera or scanner, e.g. laser scanner, which determined the position and shape of the nail surface to be manipulated.”
wherein the 3D spatial point cloud is generated based on the one or more images, which provides a representative surface of the nail,
Given that a collection of spatial points in three dimensions can be a surface or a volume, see previous citation to column 2, lines 36-39.
wherein the path is planned based on the representative surface generated by the one or more cameras to provide the selected nail shape.
Papshev, column 4, lines 8-16, “The designs or objects can be created e.g. by feeding an image (in an electronic format) from which the application produces corresponding object data and again the object data so that the controlling means can control the operation of the manipulation means correspondingly to produce said object onto the nail. It is to be
noted that the image can be created by any known methods and devices, such as by a camera or scanner and that the image may represent any imaged object.”
Regarding claim 6, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the selected nail shape is selected by the user.
Papshev, column 3, lines 17-21, “The shape information may be individual shape information related to a certain user, or the database may also comprise an exemplary nail library, where the user can select a similar nail, the shape of which corresponds with the shape of the nail to be manipulated.”
Regarding claim 9, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the system is configured to move the end effector away from the placement area to perform a tool replacement to remove a first tool of the one or more tools and replace it with a second tool of the one or more tools,
wherein the second tool is moved into position at the placement area for additional nail shaping.
Papshev discloses the device “is configured to perform one or more of: X, Y, and Z directional, and rotational movements of said manipulation device.” (column 12, claim 14). Combining the manipulation device’s full degree of motion and using the embodiment from Fig. 1, the embodiment shown clearly displays that end effectors must be above holding means 301 before being able to perform its intended function. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a first tool of the one or more tools must be removed from the placement area to permit a second tool to be moved into position for continuing nail shaping, which comprises of at least the actions from Column 5, Lines 19-35.
Regarding claim 10, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein each of the one or more tools is connected to a nail shaping subassembly that is replaceable to attach a different nail shaping subassembly to the end effector to provide a different tool
Papshev, column 6, lines 56-61, “The manipulation means comprises for example printer, like a 3D printer 102, and unit 103 for dispenser and/or airbrush or tampo printer, which are advantageously configured to build up the layers of the object and colouring, for example.”, where unit 103, in this case, is a flexible slot that can have at least one of those three cited tools. As each tool (shown in Fig. 1) comprises of an end effector and holding interface to form a subassembly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the embodiments of unit 103 indicate that the parts can be replaced by other parts depending on the process and tools desired.
Regarding claim 12, with respect to all the limitations of claim 10, the system further discloses:
wherein each nail shaping subassembly comprises a kinematic mount interface.
Examiner references “The Principle of Kinematic Constraint” by Campbell (2016) for the definition of kinematic mount interface here. Specifically from Campbell, “The advantage of a kinematic mount is that it locates one rigid body relative to another with very high repeatability, without over-constraining the body or introducing instability. It accomplishes this by using the precise number (and arrangement) of contact points needed to allow the desired degrees of freedom – no more and no less.” See Fig. 1 of Papshev. Each of the manipulation means subassemblies 102 to 105 are clearly fixed to a structure that itself is fixed to the manipulation means system 101.
Regarding claim 14, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools comprise different tools for performing different nail shaping tasks.
See Fig. 1 of Papshev, where 3D printer 102, dispenser 103, and curing unit 104, are different tools for performing different nail shaping tasks in column 6, lines 56-65.
Regarding claim 15, with respect to all the limitations of claim 14, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools are selected from a group consisting of: a nail file, a nail clipper, a nail buffer, a cuticle trimmer, a cuticle oil depositor, and a nail cleanser.
Papshev, claim 10, “The system of claim 1, wherein the manipulation device comprises one or more capabilities for mechanical cleaning, grinding, brushing, greasing, oiling or finger massaging, removing artificial nails, paints, lacquers and other artificial layers or objects applied onto the nails surface and operated according to controlling instructions of the controlling device based at least on said first and second controlling data.”
Regarding claim 17, with respect to all the limitations of claim 14, the system further discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more tools is configured to be positioned at an end of the nail for shaping an edge of the nail.
Papshev, column 2, lines 16-21, “The manipulation may comprises for example printing,
painting, cleaning, removing of artificial nails, application of primary layer or transparent, translucent or single-colour of multi-colours paints and lacquers, including UV lacquers, oiling, mechanical cleaning, grinding, brushing, greasing and finger massaging, as an example.”
Regarding claim 18, with respect to all the limitations of claim 14, the system further discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more tools is configured to be positioned above the nail for modifying a top surface of the nail.
See citation above. An action such as painting would be modification to the top surface of a nail.
Regarding claim 26, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the placement area comprises a restraint for holding the at least one digit in place during the shaping of the nail.
See Fig. 1 of Papshev, where reader 108 shows the restraint. Fig. 3B also shows the restraint in clearer detail.
Regarding claim 27, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the placement area comprises a resting support for resting a hand of a user during nail shaping.
See Fig. 1. Fingerprint reader 108 is displayed, but its surface also functions as a resting support as well. See also Fig. 3A of Papshev, where resting area for hand 301 is shown.
Regarding claim 28, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the end effector is moveable along at least three motion axes for shaping of the nail.
Papshev, claim 14, “The system of claim 1, wherein the controlling device is configured to perform one or more of: X, Y, and Z directional, and rotational movements of said manipulation device.”
Regarding claim 29, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the system is a robotic system for automated shaping of the nail of the user without requiring user input during the shaping.
Papshev, column 5, lines 36-38, “The system may be implemented as a manual, semiautomated or fully automated manicure and pedicure manipulation system.”
Regarding claim 30, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the end effector is moveable for replacing the one or more tools for nail shaping with one or more tools for nail polishing following the nail shaping,
Papeshev, column 2, lines 16-21, “The manipulation may comprises for example printing, painting, cleaning, removing of artificial nails, application of primary layer or transparent, translucent or single-colour of multi-colours paints and lacquers, including UV lacquers, oiling, mechanical cleaning, grinding, brushing, greasing and finger massaging, as an example.”, where lacquer here is nail polish. One of ordinary skill in the art would find that the manipulation means of Papshev cannot perform its function if there is another tool occupying the space above the nail. Regarding the movement of the one or more tools, column 7, lines 59-62 disclose, “The controlling means may control for example the movements and operational parameters (like dispensing and timing parameters) of the manipulation means, such as 2D/3D printer, dispenser, scanning or imaging means, UV Radiators, airbrush and selection of material to be used for object production, as an example.”, where the manipulation means has been disclosed to comprise of several end effector tools.
wherein the system moves the end effector to polish the nail.
Papshev, column 5, lines 19-35, “The nail manipulation according to the embodiments of the invention may comprise e.g. following: cleaning of the nails and fingers, indirect manufacturing of the gel nails, acrylic nails or similar artificial nails by means of 3D printer, direct manufacturing of the artificial nail on the human nail surface by means of low temperature 3D printing method, application of the indirectly manufactured artificial nails onto the human nail surface and/or finger using for example adhesives, maintenance operations for artificial nails, application of the primary layer, application of transparent, translucent or single-colour or multi-colour paints and lacquers, and/or application of specific biomaterial for natural nail reconstructions.”
Regarding claim 31, Papshev discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, at a designated placement area, at least one digit of a user having a nail;
See Fig. 1 of Papshev, where item 108 represents the placement area for the finger.
scanning the nail of the user with one or more sensors to generate at least one sensor representation of the nail;
Papshev, column 9, lines 59-66, “FIG. 6 illustrates a principle of an exemplary process chart 600 for nail manipulation 601 according to an advantageous embodiment of the invention, where in step 602 the user nail is 2D or 3D scanned by scanner or camera or other suitable shape information providing means described in this document. As a result a first personal information file is provided, which represent at least the shape information of 65 the nail.”
inputting, into an artificial intelligence (AI) model, the at least one sensor representation of the nail, wherein the AI model outputs at least one indicator of an amount of nail material to be removed from the nail to achieve a selected nail shape by inscribing the selected nail shape onto the at least one sensor representation;
While Papshev discloses receiving as input the sensor representation of the nail (Fig. 6, step 602 “nail scanning”), inscribing a selected nail shape onto the sensor representation (Fig. 6, step 604 “modelling”), and outputting at least one indicator of an amount of nail material to be removed from the nail to achieve the selected nail (Fig. 6, step 606, where column 10, lines 21-25 specify the use of modelling data for controlling manipulation means and said manipulation includes mechanical operations such as grinding as seen in column 2, lines 21-26.), Papshev does not disclose an artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to perform the above.
From a similar field of endeavor, Salian discloses a robot utilizing AI for nail shaping, where cameras are used to capture sensor representation of the nail to provide a nail painting service within a 0.3 mm accuracy. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system disclosed by Salian to the system of Papshev as the system would remove the requirement of a nail library (Fig. 6, step 603 “library”) that acts as a database of exemplary nails that corresponds to the shape to be manipulated (column 3, lines 17-21), minimizing the storage requirements of Papshev and improve costs.
planning, based on the output of the AI model, a path for shaping of the nail; and
While Papshev discloses a path planning model to plan a path of movement for the end effector to shape the nail based on an output, where the end effector is configured to move on the motion platform into position based on the planned path for applying the one or more tools to the nail to shape the nail (column 10, lines 10-25, “In step 604 the system is configured to provide a modelling for matching said object data, e.g. image from step 603 to shape of the nail provided in step 602. This modelling data (electronic file) is also personal information, where a certain image data and personal shape data of the nail is combined. The modelling data is according to an example analogously with CAM manufacturing file (CAM; computer numerical control file) controlling a CNC machine (CNC; computer-aided manufacturing machine). Also the modelling data can be stored e.g. to a database of the system as a personal modelled file for manufacturing a certain object. The modelling data comprises advantageously said first and second data. Thus according to an example the system may use said modelling data for controlling said manipulation means when manipulating, such as printing the object in step 605.”), Papshev does not disclose receiving an output of an AI model to accomplish the above.
In light of the rationale regarding “an artificial intelligence (AI) …”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious, prior to the applicant’s effective filing date, to combine the system disclosed by Salian to the system of Papshev as the AI model of Salian is shown to move an end effector into positions along a path to fulfill the shaping needs of a user, where integrating said AI model to Papshev would remove the CAM/CNC modelling data attributed to select nail shapes within Papshev’s modeling library to improve costs.
moving, based on the planned path, an end effector having one or more tools into position for applying the one or more tools to the nail for shaping of the nail.
Papshev, column 10, lines 10-25, “In step 604 the system is configured to provide a modelling for matching said object data, e.g. image from step 603 to shape of the nail provided in step 602. This modelling data (electronic file) is also personal information, where a certain image data and personal shape data of the nail is combined. The modelling data is according to an example analogously with CAM manufacturing file (CAM; computer numerical control file) controlling a CNC machine (CNC; computer-aided manufacturing machine). Also the modelling data can be stored e.g. to a database of the system as a personal modelled file for manufacturing a certain object. The modelling data comprises advantageously said first and second data. Thus according to an example the system may use said modelling data for controlling said manipulation means when manipulating, such as printing the object in step 605.”
Regarding claim 32, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
receiving, at a user interface, a selection by a user of a nail shape or a nail length.
Papshev, column 3, lines 17-21, “The shape information may be individual shape information related to a certain user, or the database may also comprise an exemplary nail library, where the user can select a similar nail, the shape of which corresponds with the shape of the nail to be manipulated.”
Regarding claim 36, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
generating a 3D spatial point cloud with based on the at least one image of the nail to be shaped, which provides a representative surface of the nail, wherein the path is planned based on the representative surface generated to get the desired selected shape.
See citation in claim 3 regarding the spatial point cloud based off a detected image in claim 1 regarding the analogy to the CNC machine in controlling the manipulation means.
Regarding claim 37, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
generating a 3D spatial point claim cloud with a 3D sensor suite.
See citation in claim 3 regarding reconstructing a 3D shape profile off of different sensors disclosed.
Regarding claim 38, with respect to all the limitations of claim 37, the method further discloses:
wherein the sensor representation comprises one or more images of the nail to be shaped, and wherein the 3D spatial point cloud is generated based on the one or more images, which provides a representative surface of the nail, and further comprising planning the path based on the representative surface generated by the cameras to provide the selected nail shape.
See the citations of claims 1 regarding the analogy to the CNC machine in controlling the manipulation means.
Regarding claim 39, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
moving the end effector away from the placement area to perform a tool replacement to remove a first tool of the one or more tools and replace it with a second tool of the one or more tools, wherein the second tool is moved back into position at the placement area for additional nail shaping.
Examiner notes that the interpretation giving to this claim was discussed in a previous section regarding indefinite limitations. With the interpretation in mind, see rationale of claim 9.
Regarding claim 40, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools comprise different tools for performing different nail shaping tasks, wherein the one or more tools are selected from a group consisting of: a nail file, a nail clipper, a nail buffer, a cuticle trimmer, a cuticle oil depositor, and a nail cleanser.
See citation in claim 15.
Regarding claim 43, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the AI model is further configured to determine a minimum amount of nail material that is needed to be removed to achieve the selected nail shape by performing an optimization
In view of the rationale of claim 1 regarding “an artificial intelligence (AI) …”, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the system of Salian combined to the system of Papshev would also be configured to determine a minimum amount of nail material that is needed to be removed to achieve the selected nail shape through an optimization as optimization is inherent to AI, where determining the minimum amount of nail material that is needed to be removed to achieve the selected nail shape is improved via the optimization.
Claims 7-8, 11, 13, 19, 21-25, 33, 34-35, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10426244B2 (Papshev) in view of “AI Nails It: Viral Manicure Robot Powered by GPU-Accelerated Computer Vision” (Salian) and in further view of US10542810B1 (Auguste)
Regarding claim 7, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools of the end effector comprise a first tool and a second tool, and wherein a drive motor on the end effector is configured to move the first tool away from the nail following use and to move the second tool into position to perform further shaping of the nail.
Papshev discloses the one or more tools of the end effector (See Fig. 1 and 3D printer 102, dispenser 103, and curing unit 104, as an example in column 6, lines 56-65) and capability to move a first tool of the one or more tools for a second tool of the one or more tools (column 7, lines 59-62, “The controlling means may control for example the movements and operational parameters (like dispensing and timing parameters) of the manipulation means, such as 2D/3D printer, dispenser, scanning or imaging means, UV radiators, airbrush and selection of material to be used for object production, as an example.”) In particular, Papshev discloses the device “is configured to perform one or more of: X, Y, and Z directional, and rotational movements of said manipulation device.” (Papshev, column 12, claim 14).
However, Papshev does not disclose the drive motor distinctly. While they do disclose a full range of three-dimensional motion in both translation and rotation (see claim 14 of Papshev), their system discloses the use of multiple platforms and end effectors. However, Auguste discloses an automatic manicure apparatus which features a rotating tool unit with a rotator motor and rotatable tool housing, which features a plurality of manicure tools (Auguste, Abstract, lines 1-8). It would then be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine the motor of Auguste and the system of Papshev. As there exists wasted motion to move tools back and forth during the process, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the motorized tool end effector system to the disclosure of Papshev. This would allow for lowered downtimes between nail shaping activities.
Regarding claim 8, with respect to all the limitations of claim 7, the system further discloses:
wherein the end effector comprises at least a third tool, and
See above citation in the section regarding claim 7 regarding the manipulation means 101.
wherein the drive motor on the end effector is configured to move the third tool into position for modifying the nail.
See the above rationale regarding the inclusion of the drive motor in claim 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would then find it obvious to include the multi-tool system disclosed by Papshev or Auguste while assessing the inclusion of the drive motor, where Auguste features a rotating tool housing (Auguste, Abstract, Lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 11, with respect to all the limitations of claim 10, the system further discloses:
wherein each nail shaping subassembly comprises a drive motor.
Papshev, as mentioned previously, does not disclose the use of a drive motor nor do they disclose the use of a drive motor in their end effector subassemblies 102 – 105. However, Auguste discloses the use of a motorized tool housing (Auguste, Abstract, Lines 3-5) featuring a motor and a housing that can support a plurality of tools (Auguste, Abstract, Lines 6-7). As there exists wasted motion to move tools back and forth during the process, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the motorized tool end effector system to the disclosure of Papshev. This would allow for lowered downtimes between nail shaping activities.
Regarding claim 13, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the nail shaping subassembly comprises a drive motor and a tool support holding two or more tools, and
Regarding the nail shaping subassemblies in Papshev, each subassembly is shown to have a slot that can have the tools lowered up or down, but the use of a drive motor or multi-tool capacity in one subassembly is not shown. However, Auguste discloses the use of a multi-tool housing system powered by a rotating motor (Auguste, Abstract, Lines 1-8). With the similar rationale regarding the combination of Auguste and Papshev in the section regarding claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine these two systems from the disclosures.
wherein the drive motor is configured to move the two or more tools to position each tool at the nail for performing a specific nail shaping procedure.
See above rationale regarding the combination of Auguste and Papshev in claim 7. Reducing translational motion would conserve power and speed up the process for the user wanting nail shaping.
Regarding claim 19, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
comprising a frame having a top support and side supports, the frame having the one or more sensors mounted to it by sensor supports.
Papshev does shows walls that act as supports holding up the nail shaping system with a camera presumed to be attached to a wall as there exist no distinct ground support holding it up, but does not disclose a top support. Auguste, however, shows a full enclosure with a lid in Fig. 1. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine the use of an enclosure from Auguste to the system of Papshev to protect the system from any external damage and wear.
Regarding claim 21, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the motion platform is mounted on a base platform by motion platform supports.
While Papshev does not disclose the use of motion platform supports in their disclosure, Auguste discloses the combination of X, Y, and Z motors and tracks (Auguste, Column 3, Paragraphs 2-3, Lines 12-28). These motors create a motion platform controlling the motion of the end effector within the housing, and said housing walls acts as the support for the tracks on the base platform of the housing floor (see Fig. 5 of Auguste).
Regarding claim 22, with respect to all the limitations of claim 21, the system further discloses:
wherein at least one z-axis track is mounted to the motion platform.
See rationale in claim 21 regarding the disclosure of a z-axis track.
Regarding claim 23, with respect to all the limitations of claim 22, the system further discloses:
wherein an x-axis track is moveably mounted to the z- axis track, the x-axis track designed to slide back and further along a z axis to move the end effector forward and backward relative to the nail.
Papshev does not disclose the use of a track for their three-dimensional motion. However, Auguste does disclose the use of tracks to control the motion of an end effector.
(Auguste, column 3, lines 24-28, “An X-Z motor 56 is coupled to the X track 54, and the X-Z motor 56 slidably travels along the X track 54. A Z track 58 is coupled to the X-Z motor 56, and the Z track 58 lies perpendicular to the X track 54 and each of the pair of Y tracks 42.)
These tracks have support through being attached to the walls of the housing. It would then be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the track system of Auguste with the system of Papshev. The tracks being attached to the housing would have more actuatable space to hold the tooling disclosed by Papshev and would have more secured positioning versus non-attached motion platforms.
Regarding claim 24, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein the x-axis track is configured to allow the end effector to slide from side to side along the motion platform to move the end effector from side to side relative to the nail.
Examiner notes here that the arbitrary labeling of the coordinate system must only be kept consistent with the first label given. Specifically, so long as the conventional rules of perpendicularity such as the “right-hand rule” are consistent, any axis can be first labeled as x. With regards to the limitations above, see the rationale given to claim 23, particularly the mention of motor coupled to a track to slide along the track, where the track in this case is disclosed to be the x-axis.
Regarding claim 25, with respect to all the limitations of claim 1, the system further discloses:
wherein a y-axis track is moveably mounted to the x- axis track, the y-axis track designed to move the end effector up and down relative to the nail.
See the rationale above regarding claims 22, 23, and 24. The rationale in 24 discusses the labeling of the tracks while the rationales of claims 22 and 23 disclose a multi-track system covering an entire three-dimensional range of motion.
Regarding claim 33, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools of the end effector comprise a first tool and a second tool, and further comprising moving, based on the planned path, the end effector with a second tool into position for applying the second tool to the nail for nail shaping.
See the rationale and citations regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 34, with respect to all the limitations of claim 33, the method further discloses:
moving, based on the planned path, the end effector with a third tool into position for applying the third tool to the nail for polishing the nail.
Papshev, column 5, lines 19-35, “The nail manipulation according to the embodiments of the invention may comprise e.g. following: cleaning of the nails and fingers, indirect manufacturing of the gel nails, acrylic nails, or similar artificial nails by means of 3D printer, direct manufacturing of the artificial nail on the human nail surface by means of low temperature 3D printing method, application of the indirectly manufactured artificial nails onto the human nail surface and/or finger using for example adhesives, maintenance operations for artificial nails, application of the primary layer, application of transparent, translucent or single-colour or multi-colour paints and lacquers, and/or application of specific biomaterial for natural nail reconstructions.”. This citation shows a plurality of possible operations based off of end effectors. There exist several embodiments where the application of a third tool of one or more tools would be the application of lacquer/polish to the nail.
Regarding claim 35, with respect to all the limitations of claim 33, the method further discloses:
moving the first tool away from the nail following use and moving the second tool into position to perform further shaping of the nail.
See rationale regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 42, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
moving the end effector along at least three motion axes for shaping of the nail.
See rationale of claim 22.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10426244B2 (Papshev) in view of “AI Nails It: Viral Manicure Robot Powered by GPU-Accelerated Computer Vision” (Salian) and in further view of US9538825B2 (Yamasaki).
Regarding claim 20, with respect to all the limitations of claim 19, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise two cameras, a first camera of the two cameras mounted on a first end of the top support and a second camera of the two cameras mounted on a second end of the top support, wherein the two cameras each have lens aimed at the placement area.
Fig. 1 of Papshev shows a camera presumed to be fixed to a wall. However, there does not exist a second camera. From Papshev’s disclosure, “The system may also comprise a camera 111 for on-time follow up of the treatment or manipulation. In addition the system may also comprise also display for providing visually operated user interface as well as for displaying real-time information about the manipulation, such as images of video. In addition the user can locate the finger in the right position much easier when seeing images or video of the process (especially when the system is enclosed in a non-transparent way).” (Papshev, column 8, lines 30-39). As the camera is used to give a user information of the process, the location and angle of the camera is important as the view must be clear to the user.
While Papshev does not disclose the use of a second camera, in the same field of endeavor, Yamasaki discloses two cameras (column 14, lines 54-57, “In the embodiment, the nail T can be photographed from at least two different positions or angles by the two cameras 51 as the photographing device, and at least two nail images are obtained.”) where the cameras appear to be mounted to the top support aiming at the placement. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the rationale provided above to justify combining Yamasaki’s multi-camera system. This would allow for multi-perspective view for a user to observe the progress being made on their nail, enabling a user to continue or stop for any reason regarding the process.
Claims 16 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US10426244B2 (Papshev) in view of “AI Nails It: Viral Manicure Robot Powered by GPU-Accelerated Computer Vision” (Salian) and in further view of US20080264438A1 (Clelland).
Regarding claim 16, with respect to all the limitations of claim 14, the system further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools comprise nail shaping tools each having variable grit surfaces, and
While Papshev does not disclose the use of variable grit surfaces, Clelland discloses an invention of an ergonomic fingernail file. This file utilizes a two-grit system where “One side (the front side of the fingernail file) is a more coarse grit for more aggressive shaping and trimming of nails. The other side (the underside or back side which can be used by simply flipping the file over) is a finer grit for polishing, buffing, and smoothing of the nail edge.” (Clelland, Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, would then know that there exist varying levels of grit for varying purposes and would be motivated to include varying grit levels into the system of Papshev.
wherein different ones of the one or more tools are selected based on a level of grit needed to perform a specific nail shaping procedure.
The citation from Clelland above show the use of different grits for different purposes.
Regarding claim 41, with respect to all the limitations of claim 31, the method further discloses:
wherein the one or more tools comprise nail shaping tools each having variable grit surfaces, and further comprising selecting tools based on a level of grit needed to perform a specific nail shaping procedure.
See rationale of claim 16.
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 JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656