Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/628,830

FALSE NAIL REMOVAL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Examiner
NOBREGA, TATIANA L
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ennio Products INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
184 granted / 561 resolved
-37.2% vs TC avg
Strong +58% interview lift
Without
With
+57.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 561 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 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 7 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cavity" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claims 1, 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaughn (US 2550890). Regarding claim 1, Vaughn discloses a device capable of being used to remove false nails, comprising a holding part (gripping portion of 10 and 30,33) and a nail removing part (12), wherein the nail removing part is arranged at an end of the holding part, and the nail removing part is made of a hard material (Refer to col. 3 lines 19-20, col. 4 lines 8-11 and Figures 1-8) so that the nail removing part is capable of being inserted between a person’s nail and a false nail mounted on the person’s nail. Regarding claim 2, Vaughn discloses the nail removing part is provided with a channel (21, 41). Regarding claim 5, Vaughn discloses the holding part is provided with a cavity (cavity of 30) capable of storing a nail removing liquid. Regarding claim 6, Vaughn discloses the holding part is provided with a pressing device (30). Regarding claim 7, Vaughn discloses a linkage device (23) is arranged between the cavity and the nail removing part to selectively turn on or off communication between the cavity and the channel (23 prevents unwanted dispensing from occurring, only when 30 is pressed will product dispense, Refer to col. 3 lines 65-69 and col. 4 lines 11-15 and 52-54). Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willis (US 6758220). Regarding claim 1, Willis discloses a false nail removal device, comprising a holding part (2) and a nail removing part (portion between 2 and terminal distal edge), wherein the nail removing part is arranged at an end of the holding part, and the nail removing part is made of a hard material (Refer to col. 4 lines 5-7)) so that the nail removing part is capable of being inserted between a person’s nail and a false nail mounted on the person’s nail. Regarding claim 3, Willis discloses the nail removing part comprises a slope (best shown in Figure 1B, see 1) arranged at an end thereof opposite to the holding part and an extension section (portion between 1 and 2, having sloped top surface and concavities, Refer to Figures 1A-2B) arranged at another end thereof close to the holding part; and an angle (supplementary angle to angle shown in Figure 1B is 170 degrees as the angle shown in Figures 1B is 10 degrees, Refer to col. 4 lines 14-16) formed between the slope and the extension section is equal to or greater than 170 degrees. Regarding claim 4, Willis discloses the extension section (portion between 1 and 2, having sloped top surface and concavities, Refer to Figures 1A-2B) has a height greater than that of the slope (Refer to Figures 1A and 1B). Regarding claim 6, Willis discloses the holding part is provided with a pressing device (5 or 3). Regarding claim 10, Willis discloses the nail removing part comprises a tip (1), and in a right side view of the device, the tip has an angle equal to or less than 20 degrees (Refer to angle shown in Figure 1B and col. 4 lines 14-16). Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 102148194B1). Regarding 1, Kim discloses a device capable of false nail removal, comprising a holding part (23) and a nail removing part (22), wherein the nail removing part is arranged at an end of the holding part, and the nail removing part is made of a hard material so that the nail removing part can be inserted between a person’s nail and a false nail mounted on the person’s nail (Refer to Figures 2a-5). Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses cap (10) detachably sleeved on the nail removing part (Refer to Figures 2a-5). 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. Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim. Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the nail removing part has a diameter at a middle point, a diameter at an end and a diameter at an opposite end (Refer to annotated Figure below); however, Kim does not provide specific dimensions and therefore does not disclose the end diameter is 3.3 mm, the middle diameter is 4.1 mm and the opposite end diameter is 5 mm. It is conventional for these devices to have tips on the millimeter scale given the normal/average sizes of nails, cuticles, etc. Kim depicts the end diameter as being smallest, the opposite end diameter as being largest and the middle diameter as being in between the end and opposite end diameter and therefore, provides the general conditions of the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the dimensions would result in a difference in function of the device of Kim. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art being faced with modifying the device of Kim would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed diameters solve any stated problem and there appears to be no criticality placed on the values disclosed. As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim to have the claimed diameter values as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. PNG media_image1.png 297 495 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575627
HAIR-BRAID LACE WITH A ONE-STRAND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569322
FLOSSER ATTACHMENT FOR DENTAL TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564483
DENTAL FLOSS HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557894
ARTIFICIAL NAIL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557893
NAIL DRILL FOR EASY CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+57.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 561 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month