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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,6,7,21-27,29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jui-Tsang (US 20150101194 A1).
For claim 1, Jui-Tsang discloses trimming shears for cutting one or more claws of an animal comprising:
a first handle (20);
a second handle (10), wherein the second handle pivots relative to the first handle;
a guide (70) arranged forward of the first handle, the guide defining an aperture (74) for receiving a respective one of the one or more claws of the animal;
a blade (60,64) extending within a blade plane, the blade being configured to be urged within the blade plane along a blade path between a pre-cut position (the initial position, for example, as shown in fig. 5) and a cut position (the cut position exists when the user grasp the second handle and squeeze towards the first hand) in response to pivotal movement of the second handle relative to the first handle; and
an indexer (80) configured to adjust the pre-cut position of the blade relative to the aperture by the indexer moving the blade with a corresponding movement of the indexer, such that a maximum insertion distance of the respective claw within the aperture is at least partially defined by the pre-cut position of the blade (para. 0015 states that the user can adjust the indexer 80 to set the position as desired for the blade 60 against the guide 70).
For claim 2, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the blade defines a cutting edge (64), the cutting edge having an arcuate shape (as shown in fig. 1).
For claim 3, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the aperture is circular (74 is circular as shown in fig. 1).
For claim 6, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a rotation of the indexer causes a corresponding linear movement of the blade, adjusting the pre-cut position of the blade (per para. 0015).
For claim 7, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the indexer is configured to adjust the blade between at least four two different predetermined pre-cut positions (functional recitation to which the indexer 80 of Jui-Tsang can perform the intended function of configured to adjust the blade as many positions as the user wishes by rotating the indexer 80 per para. 0015).
For claim 21, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein: a body (30,20,22) defines the first handle; the second handle is pivotally coupled to the body; and the guide extends from the body (as shown in figs. 1 & 5).
For claim 22, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the second handle pivots relative to the first handle in a handle plane (as the user squeezes the second handle towards the first handle, an imaginary handle plane can be drawn); and the blade plane is transverse to the handle plane (as shown in figs. 1,5).
For claim 23, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the blade plane is perpendicular to the handle plane (as explained in the above claim 22).
For claim 24, Jui-Tsang discloses the trimming shears of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the blade moves linearly, and parallel to a top surface of the guide (as shown in figs. 1,5, the blade 60 moves linearly back and forth as the user squeezes the second handle towards the first handle to cut the nail).
For claim 25, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 1.
For claim 26, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 2.
For claim 27, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 3.
For claim 29, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 6.
For claim 30, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 7.
For claim 31, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 21.
For claim 32, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 22.
For claim 33, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 23.
For claim 34, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 24.
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.
Claims 5,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jui-Tsang (as above) in view of Takasu (JP 2019068979 A, machine translation provided and will be referred to herein).
For claim 5, Jui-Tsang teaches the trimming shears of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the indexer includes an indicator configured to provide an indication of an effective opening area of the aperture.
Takasu teaches in the same field of endeavor of trimming shears, the shears of Takasu comprising an indexer (9) includes an indicator (94) configured to provide an indication of an effective opening area of the aperture (aperture of cutting from ref. 21,31, see fig. 2(a) to fig. 2(b)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an indicator as taught by Takasu for the indexer of Jui-Tsang in order to provide a scale or indication of the degree of adjustment level of the indexer.
For claim 28, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that, as such, Jui-Tsang explicitly sets forth that the adjusting bolt 80 adjusts the tightness of the movable blade 60 and the fixed blade 70. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that Jui-Tsang does not disclose "an indexer configured to adjust the pre-cut position of the blade relative to the aperture", or more specifically does not disclose, "by the indexer moving the blade with a corresponding movement of the indexer".
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant because without the adjusting bolt 80, the pre-cut position of the blade 60 relative to the aperture 74 cannot exist because the blade 60 will be loose or not tighten against blade 70; hence, cannot perform the cutting function. Thus, it is clear that the adjusting bolt 80 performed the functional recitation of “configured to adjust the pre-cut position of the blade relative to the aperture”. In another word, by rotating the adjusting bolt 80, the blade 60 is locked in a position before cutting (hence, “pre-cut position”) relative to the aperture 74.
In addition, by rotating the adjusting bolt 80, the adjusting bolt 80 moves the blade 60 into locking position with blade 70 before cutting (hence, “pre-cut position”); thus, this performs the functional recitation of "by the indexer moving the blade with a corresponding movement of the indexer".
Furthermore, the adjusting bolt 80 can be rotated at various increments so that the user can set the opening position accordingly. For example, without locking the adjusting bolt 80, the user can push down on the handles 10,20 which would slide out the blade 60, and then rotate the adjusting bolt 80 to lock in the blade 60 at whatever position the user wishes against blade 70 (similar to what is shown in fig. 6 of Jui-Tsang). Thus, it is clear that the adjusting bolt 80 is an indexer that performed the function as claimed by applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights