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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz (USPN 11771294) in view of Cindric (WO 2020243495) and Gu (CN 106612626).
Balz teaches a telescopic foot care device for holding at least one foot care tool, comprising: a telescoping handle (abstract) having a first end (16), a handle grip (14) disposed on the first end and a second end (18) opposite the first end; the handle grip is formed from a non-slip material and the non-slip material has a textured surface (col. 5, lines 38-40; rubber texture), a magnetic connection tool attachment holder (22; col. 15, lines 28-33) disposed on the second end; wherein the at least one foot care tool is removable disposable in the magnetic connection tool attachment holder; and wherein the telescoping handle is continuously variable in length from a fully collapsed position whereby the at least one foot care tool is positioned at a minimum distance from the handle to a fully extended position whereby the at least one foot care tool is positioned at a maximum distance from the handle (when collapsed, the tool would be close to the handle and when extended, the tool would be farthest away from the handle). The at least one foot care tool is selected from a group consisting of a small toenail polish applicator brush, an emery board, a pumice stone, a large/cleaning brush (240; figure 38), and a sponge.
With regards to claim 1 and 6, Balz teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach that the telescopic foot care device has an LED light source and a power source and the light source near the second end to illuminate a foot or at least one foot care pedicure tool during use when the power source is activated and also fails to teach that the telescopic foot care device having a storage compartment that is removably attached to the telescoping handle and the storage compartment enabled to store the at least one foot care tool.
Cindric teaches a handle with a head that comprises an LED light source attached to the handle near the head (103) (paragraph 0027). There is a power source (208) to activate the light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Balz with a light source as taught by Cindric to allow for the area near the head of the device to be illuminated so that the user can see better.
Gu teaches a handle with a head wherein the handle has a storage compartment (figure 1) for storing the head when not in use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tacoma so that the handle has a storage compartment as taught by Gu to allow for securely storing the head when not in use.
With regards to claim 3, the telescoping handle is made from a lightweight, durable material such as aluminum (col. 33, lines 37-39) or carbon fiber.
With regards to claim 21, Balz, Cindric and Gu in combination teach a kit comprising a telescoping handle (abstract) having a first end (16), a handle grip (14) disposed on the first end and a second end (18) opposite the first end; and a magnetic connection tool attachment holder (22, col. 15, lines 28-33) disposed on the second end for holding a foot care tool; and a small toenail polish applicator brush foot care tool, an emery board foot care tool, a pumice stone foot care tool, a large/cleaning brush foot care tool (240; figure 38), and a sponge foot care tool; an LED light (Cindric; 103; paragraph 0027) and a power source (Cindric; 208); and a storage compartment that is removably attached to the telescoping handle and the storage compartment (Gu; 6) enabled to store the small toenail polish applicator brush, the foot care tool, the emery board foot care tool, the pumice stone foot care tool, the large/cleaning brush foot care tool, and the sponge foot care tool.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balz (‘294), Cindric (WO 2020243495) and Gu (CN 106612626) further in view of Shaw (USPN 10405704).
Balz, Cindric and Gu teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach a locking mechanism to secure the handle at a desired length.
Shaw teaches a telescoping handle with a locking means (spring loaded ball or button members; figure 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Balz’s telescoping handle so that there are spring loaded locking means as taught by Shaw to ensure that the length of the handle does not accidentally change when in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but one of the claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the other one needs to be canceled.
The claims include the limitation that the magnetic connection tool attachment holder includes a receptacle having a cavity and a flexible end having a plurality of slits extending radially from a center portion of the flexible end wherein the flexible end allows a portion of the at least one foot care tool to be securely gripped between the slits when the at least one foot care tool is pushed into the receptacle.
The closest prior art of Balz fails to teach a plurality of slides extending from a center of a flexible end to grip the foot care tool. It would not have been obvious to modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention therefore since there is no teaching to do so. Therefore, the claim is free from the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to Tacoma (‘337) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Tacoma have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to Balz have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Balz fails to teach a magnetic connection however, it clearly stated in col. 15, lines 28-33 that a magnetic connection is possible.
Further, while Balz doesn’t teach a light source or a storage compartment, these limitations are taught by secondary references and it would have been obvious to modify Balz with these secondary references to meet these claims limitations. The applicant fails to provide any arguments as to why the secondary references do not teach the claims limitations. Thus the rejections are being maintained.
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 SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723