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
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadler (US D310,581).
Sadler discloses a nail file comprising a substrate with three or more elongated recessed surfaces (Fig. 3 and 4), wherein each elongated recessed surface has a first edge and a second edge and the substrate is one of solid or hollow (Fig. 4); a length along the first edge and the second edge and a width between the first edge and the second edge, wherein the width of the elongated recessed surface is less than the length of the first edge of the surface (Fig. 1); and an abrasive material secured to one or more of the elongated recessed surfaces (claim “nail file”).
Regarding claim 2, the nail file further comprising a curved tip (Fig. 1 and 4) at least at a first end.
Regarding claim 4, the substrate has a convex upper surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, at least one the elongated recessed surfaces is a nail buffing material (“nail file”).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a channel along two or more sides of each elongated recessed surface (Fig. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, further comprising a channel along two or more sides of each elongated recessed surface operable to receive a substrate having the abrasive material (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, a first width at a first end and a second width at a second end, narrower than the first width (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the elongated recessed surface is concave (Fig. 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
763
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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(s) 3, 5, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler (US D 310,581) in view of Cha (US 2008/0223385).
Sadler discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate is made from wood (claims 3 and 13); the abrasive is sandpaper (claim 5); providing the abrasive and securing the abrasive (claim 11).
Cha discloses a nail file having a substrate with three or more elongated recessed surface (Fig. 4); wherein the substrate is made from wood (paragraph 18), and the abrasive is sandpaper (paragraph 19); providing the abrasive and securing the abrasive (paragraph 21) to allow for them to be interchanged as needed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the substrate of Sadler be made from wood and have removeable sandpaper adhered thereto as taught by Cha to allow for replacement of the abrasive when it is no longer operable.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadler (US D 310,581) in view of Cha (US 2008/0223385) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Taft (US 7,461,743).
The combination of Sadler and Cha disclose the claimed invention except that the securing step is adhesive instead of snap-fit. Taft shows that adhesive and snap-fit are an equivalent structure known in the art (col. 3, lines 33-36). Therefore, because these two securing methods were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute adhesive for snap fit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
3/37/2026
Prosecution Insights