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 .
Priority
Instant application, 18/635,570 file on 4/13/2023, claims priority to provisional application 63/495,853 filed on 4/13/2023; however, the claims contain subject matter which is not supported by the provisional application. For example, claim 1 requires “an integrally layer plate”, the texture be on “the microscale” and include a “plurality of ridges”, and the resin has an “elongation at yield point of at least 5.54 +- 10%, according to ASTM D638”, where this language is not found in the provisional application. Similarly, claim 8 requires “a plurality of regularly spaced apart intermittent ridges measuring about 50-100 µm each”. For purposes of applying prior art, the current claims will not be given the benefit of the provisional filing date, instead, the claims have a priority date of 4/13/2023.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochran (US 20220047058) and Vu et al. (US 20220031585).
Regarding claim 1, Cochran discloses a nail tip comprising: an integrally layered plate having a top surface and a bottom surface, at least the bottom surface including a texture including a plurality of ridges (Refer to Abstract and paragraphs 0049, 0068, 0072 and 0074, which disclose a 3D printing process, where 3D printing results in a layered nail having a plurality of ridges on the top and bottom surfaces); and a contour at a proximal end and a distal end, the contour having a rounded edge (edge corresponding to cuticle) at the proximal end (end placed adjacent the user’s cuticle during use) and a free edge at the distal end having a shape including indentations and/or angles or their combination together resulting in an appearance of an object (Refer to paragraph 0059 which discloses various distal end shapes including stiletto, flare, lipstick, mountain peak, ballerina, arrowhead, etc. where Applicant provides some of the same shapes in paragraph 0041of the instant disclosure), the a nail tip including a UV-curable resin (Refer to paragraphs 0030-0031). Cochran is silent regarding the ridges being on the microscale and the UV-curable resin being plant-based and having an elongation at yield of at least 5.54% ±10% according to ASTM D638.
Although Cochran does not explicitly state the ridges are on the microscale, the ridges are a result of the 3D printing process and it is well-known and conventional for 3D printed objects, particularly objects of a smaller overall size such as the size of artificial nails, to have ridges on the microscale, where the size of the ridges is determined by the nozzle size and layer height set in the software. Thus, 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 tip of Cochran such that the ridges be on the microscale as it is conventional in the art for such 3D printed devices to have micro-scaled ridges as a result of the manufacturing process.
Cochron explains that the artificial nails may be made of a soluble UV-curable material (Refer to paragraph 0030) but does not specify the exact polymeric material. Vu et al. discloses a composition used to construct false nails, where the composition is a UV-curable resin containing at least one reactive monomer, at least one reactive oligomer and at least one photoinitiator (Refer to paragraph 0031), and the monomer may be isobornyl(meth)acrylate (Refer to paragraph 0032) which is inherently plant-based. It is noted that Applicant provides isobornyl(meth)acrylate as the bio-based resin (Refer to paragraph 0057 of the instant disclosure). 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 tip of Cochran such that the UV-curable resin be a plant-based resin in the form of isobornyl(meth)acrylate as Vu et al. demonstrates it is well-known and conventional for nail tips to be formed of these materials. Since Applicant also uses the same materials to form the nail tips of the instant invention and elongation at yield is a material property, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the modify the elongation at yield of the resin used to form the nail tip of the combination of Cochron and Vu et al. to be within the claimed range of 5.54% ±10% per ASTM D638 as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same material), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art; additionally, the elongation at yield is a material property which is dictated solely by the material composition and the combination provides the same material as Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cochran and Vu et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, where the top surface includes a texture on the microscale (Refer to rejection of claim 1 above, nail is 3D printed resulting in a texture of ridges on the top and bottom surfaces, where the texture is on the microscale) and an additional texture (texture/pattern/design/image/finish on the top surface, Refer to paragraphs 0060, 0065, 0093 and 0094 of Cochran) on the millimeter scale (Refer to Figures 8-11 of Cochran).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cochran and Vu et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran further discloses the top surface includes a set of identically-shaped recesses spaced apart from one another (Refer to paragraphs 0093-0094 and Figures 8-11).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cochran and Vu et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran further discloses the top surface includes a set of identical indentations extending through an entire depth of the plate (Refer to paragraphs 0093-0094 and Figures 8-11).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cochran and Vu et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran further discloses the top surface includes a set of raised portions regularly spaced throughout the plate (Refer to paragraph 0060 which discloses finishes/textures such as velvet, glitter, marble, rough or raised and patterns such as stripes, dots and stars which provides regularly spaced raised portions, paragraph 0093 which describe the top surface as having a three-dimensional pattern, meaning regularly spaced raised portions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cochran and Vu et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran discloses the shape as recited in claim 1 above. Although Cochran does not explicitly state the shape includes a contour of a flower petal, Cochran does state the shape may be rounded, oval, almond or stiletto (Refer to paragraph 0059), where these shapes have the same contour as that of many flower petals (e.g. daisy petals). Therefore, Cochran provides the shape includes a contour of a flower petal. Alternatively, Cochran teaches the shape may be “any unique design” (Refer to paragraph 0059), therefore 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 shape to be a contour of a flower petal as unique designs/shapes are contemplated.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochran and Plenderleith et al. (WO 2021176023).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Cochran discloses a nail tip comprising: an integrally layered plate having a top surface and a bottom surface, at least the bottom surface including a texture including a plurality of ridges (Refer to Abstract and paragraphs 0049, 0068, 0072 and 0074, which disclose a 3D printing process, where 3D printing results in a layered nail having a plurality of ridges on the top and bottom surfaces); and a contour at a proximal end and a distal end, the contour having a rounded edge (edge corresponding to cuticle) at the proximal end (end placed adjacent the user’s cuticle during use) and a free edge at the distal end having a shape including indentations and/or angles or their combination together resulting in an appearance of an object (Refer to paragraph 0059 which discloses various distal end shapes including stiletto, flare, lipstick, mountain peak, ballerina, arrowhead, etc. where Applicant provides some of the same shapes in paragraph 0041of the instant disclosure), the nail tip including a UV-curable resin (Refer to paragraphs 0030-0031). Cochran is silent regarding the ridges being on the microscale and the UV-curable resin being plant-based and having an elongation at yield of at least 5.54% ±10% according to ASTM D638, where the plate includes a UV-curable soy-based plastic.
Although Cochran does not explicitly state the ridges are on the microscale, the ridges are a result of the 3D printing process and it is well-known and conventional for 3D printed objects, particularly objects of a smaller overall size such as the size of artificial nails, to have ridges on the microscale, where the size of the ridges is determined by the nozzle size and layer height set in the software. Thus, 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 tip of Cochran such that the ridges be on the microscale as it is conventional in the art for such 3D printed devices to have micro-scaled ridges as a result of the manufacturing process.
Cochran discloses the plate includes a UV-curable plastic (Refer to paragraphs 0030 and 0075). Although Cochran is silent regarding the UV-curable plastic being soy-based, it is well-known and conventional in the art for such ingredients to be soy-based (e.g. soybean oil, soy esters, etc.) as demonstrated by Plenderleith et al. The disclosure of Plenderleith et al. is drawn to a UV curable composition used to make 3D printed articles, molded articles, coatings, etc. (Refer to Abstract), where the UV curable composition may be made from soy-based resins such as acrylated epoxidized soybean oil or other plant-based resins such as acrylated epoxidized linseed oil (Refer to page 10 lines 32-35 and page 11 lines 1-16). 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 UV curable plastic material of the artificial nail of Cochran to be soy-based as Plenderleith demonstrates it is well-known and conventional in the art to use such soy-based materials in such plastics. Since elongation at yield is a material property and the same or similar material is provided, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the modify the elongation at yield of the resin used to form the nail tip of the combination of Cochron and Plenderleith et al. to be within the claimed range of 5.54% ±10% per ASTM D638 as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same, well-known material), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cochran and Plenderleith et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, where the top surface includes a texture on the microscale (Refer to rejection of claim 1 above, nail is 3D printed resulting in a texture of ridges on the top and bottom surfaces, where the texture is on the microscale) and an additional texture (texture/pattern/design/image/finish on the top surface, Refer to paragraphs 0060, 0065, 0093 and 0094 of Cochran) on the millimeter scale (Refer to Figures 8-11 of Cochran).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cochran and Plenderleith et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran further discloses the top surface includes a set of identically-shaped recesses spaced apart from one another (Refer to paragraphs 0093-0094 and Figures 8-11).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cochran and Plenderleith et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran further discloses the top surface includes a set of identical indentations extending through an entire depth of the plate (Refer to paragraphs 0093-0094 and Figures 8-11).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cochran and Plenderleith et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran further discloses the top surface includes a set of raised portions regularly spaced throughout the plate (Refer to paragraph 0060 which discloses finishes/textures such as velvet, glitter, marble, rough or raised and patterns such as stripes, dots and stars which provides regularly spaced raised portions, paragraph 0093 which describe the top surface as having a three-dimensional pattern, meaning regularly spaced raised portions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cochran and Plenderleith et al. disclose nail tip of claim 1, Cochran discloses the shape as recited in claim 1 above. Although Cochran does not explicitly state the shape includes a contour of a flower petal, Cochran does state the shape may be rounded, oval, almond or stiletto (Refer to paragraph 0059), where these shapes have the same contour as that of many flower petals (e.g. daisy petals). Therefore, Cochran provides the shape includes a contour of a flower petal. Alternatively, Cochran teaches the shape may be “any unique design” (Refer to paragraph 0059), therefore 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 shape to be a contour of a flower petal as unique designs/shapes are contemplated.
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huynh (US 20110132386) and Duong (US 20200405035).
Regarding claim 8, Huynh discloses a nail tip system including: a set of customizable contoured nail tips comprising a UV curable resin/plastic (Refer to paragraph 0043), at least some of the nail tips having a bottom surface (surface with 115) including a first texture (texture 115, Refer to paragraphs 0037, 0039) and a top surface (122) including a second texture (smoother texture), the first texture having a plurality of regularly spaced apart ridges (ridges formed by pattern of grooves in mold, Refer to paragraph 0039); however, Huynh is silent regarding the resin/plastic being plant-based and the ridges measuring about 50-100 µm each.
Huynh teaches the resin/plastic may include any or all of urethane diacrylate, urethane tripropyleneglycol diacrylate, urethane acrylate oligomer, etc. (Refer to paragraph 0036) where although these materials are not inherently plant-based, there are plant-based or petroleum-based versions of these materials. 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 tip system of Huynh such that the resin/plastic be plant-based, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Duong discloses an artificial nail tip, where the bottom surface of the nail tip is provided with a texture (30) similar to that of Huynh. Duong teaches the ridges forming the texture measure within the claimed range of values (Refer to paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nail tip of Huynh such that the ridges measure within the claimed range of values as Duong demonstrates values within the claimed range are well-known and conventional.
The claimed phrase “wherein the plurality of ridges are formed by additive manufacturing layer deposition” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the ridges are formed using an additive manufacturing process. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The combination of Huynh and Duong provide the same or similar structure, a plurality of ridges, via molding as would be provided via additive manufacturing.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Huynh and Duong disclose the nail tip system of claim 8, Huynh further discloses the first texture (115) further includes a plurality of formations corresponding to nail plate structures of a user (Refer to Figure 5 and paragraphs 0034, 0037 and 0039).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Huynh and Duong disclose the nail tip system of claim 8; however, the combination does not state the resin/plastic has elongation at yield point of at least about 5.54% +- 10% according to ASTM D638. Huynh disclose the materials used are the same or similar to Applicant’s disclosed material. Given use of the same or similar materials, the elongation at yield should be comparable. 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 material of the combination of Huynh and Duong to provide an elongation at yield point of at least about 5.54% +-10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same/similar materials where the elongation at yield is a material property), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Huynh and Duong disclose the nail tip system of claim 8, Huynh further discloses the system comprises at least one of a nail adhesive (bonding agent, Refer to paragraphs 0042 and 0048 and Figure 9) and a coating composition (finish agent, Refer to paragraph 0042 and 0052 and Figure 11).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Huynh and Duong disclose the nail tip system of claim 8; however, the combination does not disclose the nail tip has a free end having a customized contour including a shape including a plurality of protrusions, indentations, angles or their combination together resulting in an appearance of an object. Duong teaches the free end of an artificial nail can have various shapes such as a rounded shape (Figure 9A), an almond shape (Figure 9B), and a pointed shape (Figure 9D), where the almond and pointed shapes included angles and result in the appearance of an object (e.g. an almond and an arrowhead). 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 shape of the free end of the nail tip of the combination of Huynh and Duong to have angles and/or result in an appearance of an object as Duong demonstrates it is well-known and conventional for the free ends to have such shapes based on the desired look the user wishes to achieve.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Huynh and Duong as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hokama (US 4554935).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the combination of Huynh and Duong disclose the nail tip system of claim 8 above; however, the combination does not disclose the second texture includes a pattern/set of identical recesses on a millimeter scale spaced apart from one another. Hokama discloses an artificial nail where the top surface has a texture defined by a pattern/set of identical recesses (30, Refer to Figures 4 and 5) which serve to “better receive and adhere to applied polish” (Refer to col. 2 lines 44-46). Hokama does not specify the exact dimensions of the recesses; however, the dimensions for the apertures 21 are disclosed by Hokama as being between 0.254 and 1.27 mm, where about two recesses appear to occupy the same width as one aperture, meaning the recesses are on the millimeter scale. 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 tip system of the combination of Huynh and Duong such that the second texture of the top surface include a pattern/set of identical recesses on a millimeter scale spaced apart from one another as taught by Hokama in order to improve adhesion of nail polish to the top surface of the artificial nail and prevent peeling and/or chipping.
Claims 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giron et al. (US 20190104823).
Regarding claim 15, Giron et al. disclose a plant-based nail tip (Refer to Figures 3-6, 12, 19-22) comprising: a 3D printed material shaped into a layered nail plate having a top surface and a bottom surface, at least one of the top and bottom surfaces having an intermittent pattern of ridges throughout an entirety of the surface (Refer to paragraph 0060 (3D printing process results in layered nail having intermittent pattern of ridges throughout an entirety of the top and bottom surfaces) and paragraphs 0075 and 0079 (plant-based waxes and plant-based thermoplastics)).
Although Giron et al. does not explicitly state the ridges are on the microscale, the ridges are a result of the 3D printing process and it is well-known and conventional for 3D printed objects, particularly objects of a smaller overall size such as the size of artificial nails, to have ridges on the microscale, where the size of the ridges is determined by the nozzle size and layer height set in the software. Additionally, when using a UV curable material requiring one or more exposures to radiation in a 3D printing process, it is conventional to employ stereolithographic 3D printing which results in microscale ridges. Thus, 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 tip of Giron et al. such that the ridges be on the microscale as it is conventional in the art for such 3D printed devices to have micro-scaled ridges as a result of the manufacturing process.
Although Giron et al. do not state the plant material is soy-based, it is well-known and conventional in the art for such materials to be soy-based (e.g. soybean oil, soy esters, etc.) (Refer to references cited in Conclusion section, US 20220395449 and US 20170226050 discloses a UV-curable soy-based composition and WO 2021176023 discloses a UV-curable soy based material used to make 3D printed articles.). 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 plant material of the artificial nail of Giron et al. to be soy-based as it is well-known and conventional in the art to use such soy-based materials in such plastics.
Giron et al. are silent regarding the elongation at yield point being at least about 5.54% +-10% according to ASTM D638; however, Giron et al. disclose the materials used are the same or similar to Applicant’s disclosed material. Giron et al. teaches the material comprises “waxes, thermoplastic polymers and/or semicrystalline polymers”, where the waxes may be plant-based and the thermoplastic polymers disclosed include plant-based thermoplastics such as “polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs)”, “poly-3-hydroxybutyrate (PHB)” and “polylactic acids (PLAs)” (Refer to paragraph 0079). Given use of the same or similar materials and manufacturing method, the elongation at yield should be comparable. 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 material of Giron et al. to provide an elongation at yield point of at least about 5.54% +-10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same materials where the elongation at yield is a material property), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Giron et al. disclose the nail tip of claim 15 above, wherein the top surface includes the pattern of ridges (Refer to rejection of claim 15 above where it is explained that the 3D printing process results in layered nail having intermittent pattern of ridges throughout an entirety of the top and bottom surfaces and it is conventional for these ridges to be on the microscale) and an additional texture (327, Refer to Figure 22 and paragraph 0435) on a millimeter scale (Refer to Figure 22, where given the width dimensions of a human nail and the number of peaks and valleys forming the texture, the texture is on a millimeter scale).
Regarding claim 19, Giron et al. disclose the nail tip of claim 15 above, wherein the bottom surface further includes a first texture (ridges on the bottom surfaced formed as a result of 3D printing) includes a plurality of formations corresponding to nail plate structures of a user.
Regarding claim 20, Giron et al. disclose the nail tip of claim 15 above, where in the nail tips are bio-based and bio-degradable (Refer to paragraphs 0075 and 0079 which disclose bio-based and biodegradable materials).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giron et al. and Hokama (US 4554935).
Regarding claim 16, Giron et al. disclose the nail tip of claim 15 above; however, Giron et al. do not disclose the top surface includes a plurality of indentations extending through an entire depth of the plate. Hokama discloses an artificial nail where the nail includes a plurality of indentations/holes (21) that extend through an entire depth of the nail plate (Refer to Figures 1-4 and 6) where the indentations serve to strength the bond between the artificial nail and the natural nail by allowing adhesive to extend through the indentations and along the bottom surface of the artificial nail and the surface of the natural nail. 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 tip of Giron et al. such that the top surface include a plurality of indentations extending through an entire depth of the plate as taught by Hokama in order to strength the bond between the artificial nail and the user’s natural nail.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giron et al. and Cochran (US 20220047058).
Regarding claim 17, Giron et al. disclose the nail tip of claim 15 above where the nail tip includes a contour having a free edge at a distal end. Giron et al. explain that the free end has a particular shape but a specific shape is not disclosed. Cochron demonstrates it is well-known and conventional in the art for artificial nails to have free distal edges with various complex shapes, such as “stiletto, flare”, “lipstick, mountain peak,” and “arrowhead”, where the nail can have “any unique design” (Refer to paragraph 0059). 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 tip of Giron et al. such that the free distal edge have a shape including indentations or angles such as stiletto, flare, lipstick, mountain peak, arrowhead or any other unique design as Cochron demonstrates such shapes are conventional in the art and allow the user to have artificial nails with a desired aesthetic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Cochran does not disclose the resin being plant-based or bio-based nor does Cochran describe the UV-curable resin as having the claimed elongation at yield.
Response: It is noted claim 1 as amended does not recite the resin is bio-based. In light of the amended language the rejection of claim 1 was modified to provide a teaching for the resin being plant-based. Vu et al. was relied upon for the teaching of plant-based UV curable resin (isobornyl(meth)acrylate). In another ground of rejection, Plenderleith et al. was relied upon for the teaching of soy-based resins such as acrylated epoxidized soybean oil. It is noted that Applicant provides these very resins in the instant disclosure (Refer to paragraph 0059 of Applicant’s disclosure). Regarding the elongation at yield limitation, the prior art provides the same materials as Applicant, the elongation at yield is a material property, where it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (same, well-known material), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Argument: Cochron repeatedly state the nail tip is water soluble where water soluble compositions are materially distinct from crosslinked UV-curable resin.
Response: Cochron states the nail set may comprise a soluble polymer and “the nails of the artificial nail set may also be formed from a soluble thermoplastic followed by ultraviolet curing” (Refer to paragraphs 0030 and 0075).
Argument: Cochron does not provide a texture on the microscale including a plurality of ridges. Cochron does not require the nail tip be 3D printed and even where 3D printing is used, the formation of surface ridges depends on process paraments. Similar arguments are present with regard to Giron.
Response: Cochron and Giron explicitly state the nails are made via 3D printing (Refer to Abstract and paragraphs 0002, 0028, 0068, 0072, and 0074 of Cochron and paragraphs 0060, 0118, 0122 and 0142 of Giron). It is conventional for 3D printed articles to have a textured surface due to the printing process itself. The plastic is extruded layer by layer to build the object and as it cools and fuses microscopic valleys and ridges are formed. These microscopic ridges are often referred to as vertical fine artifacts and motor resonance rippling. 3D printed articles are known to pose bacterial risk concerns because the micro-grooves/ridges created during 3D printing harbor moisture and trap bacteria.
Cochron acknowledges the nail tips may be subjected to post-processing steps such as surface/edge refinement with sandpaper (reducing ridges to form a smoother surface), which alludes to the fact that the surface is textured (has ridges) where it may be desired that this texture be smoothened by sanding. Applicant also acknowledges the formation of the ridges as being a result of the additive manufacturing layer deposition process (Refer to claim 8).
Argument: Regarding claim 8, Huynh does not disclose the ridges are formed by additive manufacturing layer deposition.
Response: The limitation is a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The combination of Huynh and Duong provide the same or similar structure, a plurality of ridges, via molding as would be provided via additive manufacturing. Applicant also acknowledges the nail tips may be made via an injection molding process (Refer to paragraphs 0060, 0061 and 0067).
Argument: Huynh does not disclose the nail tips being made of a plant based UV-curable resin/plastic.
Response: As explained in the rejection, Huynh teaches the resin/plastic being UV-curable where it may include any or all of urethane diacrylate, urethane tripropyleneglycol diacrylate, urethane acrylate oligomer, etc. (Refer to paragraph 0036) where although these materials are not inherently plant-based, there are plant-based and petroleum-based versions of these materials. Constructing a device of a known material is a matter of obvious design choice. Numerous prior art references have been applied or cited which demonstrate it is UV-curable plant-based resins/plastic are conventional and well-known.
Argument: Regarding claim 10, Huynh does not disclose a first texture including a plurality of formations corresponding to the nail plaste structures of a user”. The office action refers to element 115 of Huynh but Applicant cannot find 115.
Response: Figure 5 depicts 115 and the disclosure of Huynh describes 115 as a “roughened pattern on about half the bottom of the nails”, where “the roughened pattern 115 comprises raised areas and recesses to provide a roughened or coarse side that facilitates adhesion of the nail body to the nail plate” (Refer to paragraphs 0034, 0037 and 0039).
Argument: Giron et al. do not disclose a soy-based UV-curable resin forming the nail tip.
Response: The office action acknowledges the Giron does not disclose the UV-curable resin is soy-based. Giron et al. discloses some plant-based UV-curable resins but does not specifically disclose a soy-based resin. The rejection explains that it is well-known and conventional in the art for such materials to be soy-based (e.g. soybean oil, soy esters, etc.) and refer to references cited in Conclusion section, which are US 20220395449 and US 20170226050 (where both references discloses a UV-curable soy-based composition) and WO 2021176023 (which discloses a UV-curable soy based material used to make 3D printed articles). It is a matter of obvious design choice to use known materials (Refer to MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220395449 and US 20170226050 discloses a UV-curable soy-based composition. WO 2021176023 discloses a UV-curable soy-based material used to make 3D printed articles. US 12508219 discloses a ptotocurable resin for artificial nails where the monomer component of the resin includes isobornyl (meth)acrylate, lauryl (meth)acrylate and/or stearyl (meth)acrylate and the composition includes urethane (meth)acrylate oligomer.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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
Prosecution Insights