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 .
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinek (US 2364085).
Regarding claim 12, Martinek discloses a nail cleaning tool (Refer to Figures 16 and 27), comprising: an elongated body (103,159) having a first end (one of the proximal or distal end portions of 103,159) and an opposite facing second end (other of the proximal or distal end portions of 103,159); wherein the first end has an integrally formed crevicing angled end protruding outward and curved (Refer to Figures 16 and 27) for cleaning a right side of a fingernail or toenail bed; wherein the second end has an integrally formed crevicing angled end protruding outward and curved (Refer to Figures 16 and 27) for cleaning a left side of a fingernail or toenail bed; wherein the ends curve in opposing directions (as shown in Figures 16 and 27, the first and second ends curve in opposite directions) and are configured to capture and remove debris from sides of fingernails and toenails; wherein the body is composed of a rigid material suitable for debris removal selected from the group consisting of plastic, wood, and metal (Refer to page 1 col. 2 lines 12-15 which discloses wood); and wherein the tool is hand-held and each end is repositionable to clean both right-side and left-side nail beds by repositioning the tool in hand.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinek and Strickland et al. (US 20060196519).
Regarding claim 13, Martinek discloses the nail cleaner of claim 12 above; however, Martinek does not disclose the crevicing angled ends are angled perpendicular to the elongated body. Martinek teaches different embodiments where the pointed tip of the crevicing angled ends extend at different angles. Strickland discloses a similar nail cleaning tool (Refer to Figure 1) having an elongated body (12) with opposing ends forming crevicing angled ends, where the angled ends are angled perpendicular to the body (pointed ends/tips 22, 32 extend perpendicularly relative to the body). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nail cleaner of Martinek such that the crevicing angled ends be angled perpendicular to the elongated body as taught by Strickland et al. since Marinek contemplates different angles and Strickland et al. demonstrate the perpendicular configuration is well-known and conventional and provides for effective cleaning of the nails.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinek as evidenced by Alvizua (D154227).
Regarding claim 13, Martinek discloses the nail cleaner of claim 12 above; however, Martinek does not disclose the crevicing angled ends are angled perpendicular to the elongated body. Martinek teaches different embodiments where the pointed tip of the crevicing angled ends extend at different angles, where one embodiment (Figures 16 and 27) provides a curved configuration but the curvature does not result in the tip/end being perpendicular to the body. Alvizua demonstrates it is wlel-known and conventional for such nail cleaning tools with curved end portions to provide the crevicing angled end angled perpendicularly to the elongated body (Refer to Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nail cleaner of Martinek such that the crevicing angled ends be angled perpendicular to the elongated body as taught by Alvizua since Marinek contemplates different angles and Alvizua demonstrate the perpendicular configuration is well-known and conventional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Martinek fails to teach or suggest the claimed side-specific functionality.
Response: In response to applicant's argument that the side-specific use is not disclosed, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The prior art teaches the recited structural elements and is able to be used as claimed.
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 TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799