DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply(s) filed on July 18, 2025 and on October 16, 2025 by electing Group A. Currently claims 35, 39, 55-57 and 99-100 are pending. Further, claims 59-63, 70-75, 77-78 and 98 to respective Groups B-H and claims 1-8, 13, 18-30, 34, 36-38, 47-52, 81-97 to respective Group A have been cancelled in reply filed on 7/18/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 56 and 57 are 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. In claim 56, on line 7, “the entirety of the visually-
perceptible alert is on the outermost surface of the membrane in both an unprotected region and
the protected region.” is indefinite since it is unclear to what extent the visually perceptible alert
and what structure constitutes unprotected and protected regions relative to the outermost surface
of the membrane? Also, in claim 57, on line 10-11, “the entire visually-perceptible alert is on the
outermost surface of the membrane within an unprotected region” is indefinite since it is unclear
on what portion of the membrane forms an unprotected region? Correction is required.
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 35, 39, 56-57 and 99-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Dresdner et at al. (US 5,357,636). Dresdner et al (hereinafter) discloses a safety
barrier/glove for protecting an underlying surface/hand (8) from exposure to pathogens, the
barrier includes a membrane (2,3) defining outermost and innermost surfaces having a form
constructed to fit closely over at least a portion of the underlying surface as shown in figure 2A,
the membrane having an outermost surface disposed distalmost from the underlying surface
when the membrane is placed thereon as shown in figures 1(A -B). The membrane defines at
least one protected region with at least a portion of the at least one protected region having one
or more built-in safety features/antiseptic composition constructed within a compartment (4) to
inhibit the exposure to pathogens onto or into the underlying surface with at least one of the one
or more built-in safety features being defined by a set of safety-related properties including a
presence, a location, and a prevention type, col. 3, lines 45-52. Further, at least one safety
indicator/colorant/dye provides a visually-perceptible alert at the outermost surface of the
membrane as shown in figure 2C, the visually-perceptible alert indicative of at least one safety-
related properties of the at least one safety feature, col. 21, lines 15-37. However, Dresdner does
not show the barrier/glove having a substance identifier.
Col 12, lines 46-67 of Dresdner discloses that the antiseptic composition can be of a non
liquid antiseptic composition form to distinguish its physical properties. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that
the barrier/glove of Dresdner having but not limited to the non liquid antiseptic composition will
substantially specify physical properties/substance identifier thereof in the set of safety related
properties upon a breach caused by an object (6) through membrane or depending on end use
thereof.
With regard to claim 39, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the at least one of the one or more built-in safety
features of Dresdner will substantially form a variation in hardness in the at least one protected
region of the membrane caused by object (6) cutting therethrough or end use thereof.
With regard to claim 56, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the visually-perceptible alert of Dresdner will
substantially be shown on regions of the outermost surface of the membrane caused by object (6)
cutting therethrough or depending on end use thereof.
Furthermore, with regard to claim 57, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
before the effective date of the claimed invention that the visually-perceptible alert of Dresdner
will substantially extends without being protected with additional coatings on a region of the
outermost surface of the membrane caused by object (6) cutting therethrough as known in glove
making art or depending on end use thereof.
Furthermore, with regard to claims 99 and 100, it would have been obvious to one
skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the visually-perceptible
alert of Dresdner will be indicative through colorant/dye/presence substantially at a
point/specific location of breach as the antiseptic composition/specific prevention type in the at
least portion of protected region cut through by the object as known in glove making art or
depending on end use thereof.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dresdner in view of
Kal et al. (WO2020/076269).
Dresdner discloses the invention as set forth in paragraph 4 above except for showing the visually perceptible alert being visually perceptible prior to a breach of the outermost surface of the membrane.
Kal et al. (hereinafter Kal) discloses a glove having a transparent window (4) that enables color change of the membrane chemically to visually alert the user when, page 2, lines 20-25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the
effective date of the claimed invention that the glove of Dresdner can be provided but not limited to a transparent window as taught by Kal that can substantially warn the user visually prior to a
breach of the outermost surface of the membrane as an alternative but equivalent means of visually warning the user as known in the glove making art or as required for a particular application thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Each of the prior at references cited on PTO-892 discloses a glove having a
safety indicator present on an outside of surface of a membrane upon a breach/leak.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am -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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
November 25, 2025 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732