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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 03 July 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 5-6, 9, 29, 31, 33-37
Newly Added
39-47
Withdrawn
6, 8-9, 14, 38
Canceled
2-4, 10-13, 15-28, 32
Pending
1, 5-9, 14, 29-31, 33-47
Presented for Examination
1, 5, 7, 29-31, 33-37, 39-47
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
B. Responses to the Objections to the Drawings
Overcome and withdrawn.
C. Response to the Objections to the Specification
Overcome and withdrawn.
D. Response to the Claim Interpretation
Regarding the “Claim Interpretation” heading, Applicant argues Examiner is not using the plain an ordinary meaning of “strand.” As set forth in the previous office actions, Examiner is using the dictionary definition of “strand,” which is the plain and ordinary meaning.
Applicant is attempting to define a strand as “a single thin length of something…” on page 16 of the Remarks, which is not consistent with the originally filed disclosure. Even so, the prior art discloses strands as defined by Applicant as “a single thin length of something” in addition to strands as defined by the dictionary as set forth under the “Claim Interpretation” heading below, and in addition to strands as defined by Applicant’s own disclosure, which is silent as to any particular definition of “strands” and only uses the term once. Para. 0035 states, “The lattice structure 50 may be formed as a regular or irregular geometrical arrangement of polymer, including strands of polymer, over the finger extension member 10A or a portion thereof,” which does not lend any particular structure to a strand.
Applicant’s 7/3/2025 replacement drawings show strands 17 to be portions of the face between slots 55. This is consistent with how the Examiner has interpreted the prior art strands.
Notably, Applicant does not argue that the prior art does not disclose strands, only that Examiner is not using the plain and ordinary meaning of a “strand.” As set forth in the rejections below, the prior art discloses strands to the degree claimed, and Applicant does not argue the prior art does not disclose strands.
E. Response to the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a)
Overcome and withdrawn.
F. Response to the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
Overcome and withdrawn.
G. Response to the Rejections of Independent Claim 35 under 35 USC § 102 (Aoki)
The arguments regarding the plurality of strands of polymer material are drawn to newly amended subject matter and have necessitated a new interpretation of Aoki, as set forth below.
Applicant argues Aoki does not disclose a finger extension member configured to be positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove. This is not persuasive, and was addressed in the previous and present claim rejections.
The recitation “configured to be positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove” is an intended use recitation. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the Aoki member is capable of being positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, which does not show a sports glove, let alone a member in combination with a sports glove or positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove, and Aoki fig 7 shows margins of the member positioned in the back of portions of the index finger and thumb stalls.
H. Response to the Rejection of Independent Claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 (Aoki and Okazaki)
Applicant makes the same arguments against the Aoki reference as for the claim 35 rejection, and Examiner’s response is the same as above.
I. Responses to the Rejections of Independent Claim 34 under 35 USC § 103 (Aoki, Ozaki, Latina)
Applicant makes the same arguments against the Aoki reference as for the claim 35 rejection, and Examiner’s response is the same as above.
The claim amendments necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art. The argument regarding the combination of Aoki and Latina is moot in view of the new rejection set forth below.
The arguments that are drawn to amended subject matter are addressed in the rejections below.
J. Response to the Rejections of Independent Claims 34 and 35 under § 103 (Beraznik, Sandusky)
Persuasive and withdrawn.
K. The Dependent Claims
The arguments are drawn to amended subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below.
Regarding “additive manufacturing” in claim 36, Applicant argues this method would fundamentally alter the structure of Aoki, but does not provide any further explanation or support for this argument. Therefore, this is merely Applicant’s assertion and is not supported by the evidence.
Applicant argues there are different structures implied by the process steps. Applicant does not indicate what these different structures are, nor are they found in the disclosure or claims. Applicant is reminded that once a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show a nonobvious difference. See MPEP 2113(II). Applicant has stated there is a nonobvious difference, but Applicant has not provided evidence establishing a nonobvious difference.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (intermediate product) and species C (figs 10-11) in the reply filed on 09 December 2021 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03 July 2025. These drawings are acceptable to enter.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 45 and 46 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
For claim 45, one of ordinary skill would understand transverse to mean an angle of 90 degrees. The drawings have support for slots 55 being angled in different directions, but they do not appear to be transverse. A portion of FIG 3 is annotated below to show the angle is more or less than 90 degrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 46, the figures appear to support the strands integral with each other; however, the figures do not show where the individual strands begin and end such that it can be determined they intersect with each other. For example, the it is not clear if the strands are intersecting, abutting, or have intermediate material therebetween such that they do not contact one another at all.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of claims 45, 46, and 47.
For claim 45, the disclosure is silent as to the directions of the slots being transverse.
For claim 46, the disclosure is silent as to the strands intersecting or being integral with each other.
For claim 47, the disclosure is silent as to the finger extension member being or not being a web of a baseball or softball glove.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 45, and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities: replace “each lattice structure” with –each of the lattice structure and additional lattice structure—for proper antecedent basis and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new matter is as follows:
For claim 45, the disclosure is silent as to the directions of the slots being transverse.
For claim 46, the disclosure is silent as to the strands intersecting or being integral with each other.
For claim 47, the disclosure is silent as to the finger extension member being or not being a web of a baseball or softball glove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 46 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 46 recites the limitation "the strands" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 has support for “a geometrical arrangement of strands of a polymer material.”
The claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the limitation “strands” in claims 1, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 37, Examiner is using the plain ordinary meaning “an element that forms part of a complex whole.” See the Oxford Languages definition cited on the 11/28/2024 PTO-892. Please note that Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to any particular structure or definition of “strands,” and the term appears only once in the specification, in para. 0035, but is not defined or described therein. Furthermore, replacement figures 2 and 3 adds new reference number 17 to represent strands, but lead lines pointing to both material and voids, rendering it unclear what structure Applicant intends by “strands.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 35 and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki (US 7168099 B2).
As to claim 35, Aoki discloses a finger extension member configured to be positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove (“Basket web and ball catching tool using the same,” title, capable of being positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, which does not show a sports glove, let alone a member in combination with a sports glove or positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove, and fig 7 shows margins of the member positioned in the back of portions of the index finger and thumb stalls), the finger extension member comprising:
an upper end (figures 1-6);
a lower end (figures 1-6); and
two opposing faces, wherein the two opposing faces comprise a front face and a rear face positioned opposite the front face (the combination of 2 and 3 is the front face and 1 is the rear face, 2/3 and 1 oppose one another because 2/3 is on the rear side of the glove and 1 is on the palm side of the glove);
wherein:
at least one of the two opposing faces includes a lattice structure (2/3 includes a lattice structure which is the combination of strands and slots show in FIGS 2 and/ or 3);
the lattice structure comprises a geometrical arrangement of strands of a polymer material (reinforcing member 3, and col 4 line 25-40 discloses polymer materials: “the reinforcing member may be made of PVC, nylon resin, rubber- based resin, silicon resin, nonwoven fabric, cloth, knitting fabric or the like, and a raw material thereof is not particularly limited,” the strands being the material between the six slits 3a); and
the finger extension member is configured to lateral movement and limit rotational movement of a user’s finger (Applicant is silent as to the degree the member limits movement, and the Aoki member will limit lateral movement and limit rotational movement to at least some degree, due to the polymer material; furthermore, the Aoki member has all of the structure of the claimed member and so is expected to function in the same manner).
As to claim 43, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 35, wherein the finger extension member is configured to be attached to a palm liner along with four additional finger extension members (capable of being attached and intended to be attached, e.g., the palm face of the baseball glove G is a palm liner and the finger portions of glove G are finger extension members), wherein the palm liner is positioned on an inside face of a front panel of a glove (where the palm face is the inside face), wherein the front panel has an outside face with a central portion forming a ball-catching pocket located above a heel of the glove and below a web of the glove (where the outside face is the rear face shown in FIG 7).
As to claim 44, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 35, wherein the geometrical arrangement of strands of a polymer material comprises horizontal slots (3a), angular slots (2b as shown in FIG 2), and additional slots (2c and/ or 2a and/ or 3b), wherein the additional slots are smaller than the horizontal slots and the angular slots (2a, 2c, and 3b are all smaller than 2b and 3a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36-37, 39, 42, and 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 7168099 B2) in view of Okazaki et al. (US 3841897 A); hereinafter, “Okazaki.”
As to claim 1, Aoki discloses a finger extension member configured to be positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove (“Basket web and ball catching tool using the same,” title, capable of being positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, which does not show a sports glove, let alone a member in combination with a sports glove or positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove, and fig 7 shows margins of the member positioned in the back of portions of the index finger and thumb stalls), the finger extension member comprising:
an upper end, a lower end (figures 1-6); and
a front face including a lattice structure (3 is the front face and 1 is the rear face, 2/3 and 1 oppose one another because 3 is on the rear side of the glove and 1 is on the palm side of the glove, the lattice structure is the geometrical arrangement of that are the material between slits 3a, 3 is polymer material, see col 4 line 25-40 discloses polymer materials: “the reinforcing member may be made of PVC, nylon resin, rubber- based resin, silicon resin, nonwoven fabric, cloth, knitting fabric or the like, and a raw material thereof is not particularly limited”) and a rear face including an additional lattice structure (1, the lattice structure is the geometrical arrangement of strands 1d);
wherein:
the lattice structure includes a geometrical arrangement of strands of a polymer material (see above), but Aoki does not disclose the strands of the additional lattice structure are polymer.
Aoki discloses the additional lattice structure comprises a pattern of strands of leather or artificial leather (col 4 line 25-35), but does not expressly disclose polymer.
It is known in the art to provide artificial leather made from polymer.
Okazaki teaches artificial leather is composed of polymer (Okazaki abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would understand that Aoki’s artificial leather is obviously a polymer material, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Aoki’s geometrical arrangement of strands in a polymer material, for the purpose of providing a known type of artificial leather to achieve the desired aesthetics and/ or functional properties.
As to claim 5, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure of the front face is a first layer of the finger extension member (see FIGS), the additional lattice structure of the rear face is a second layer of the finger extension member (see FIGS), and the finger extension member further comprises a third layer including athird lattice structure between the front face and the rear face each of the front face and the rear face include a lattice portion (2).
As to claim 7, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein the finger extension member is integrated into the sports glove (fig 7).
As to claim 29, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, further comprising two holes positioned to receive a lace threaded through the two holes (two of 1a and fig 7 shows these holes receiving a lace/ leather string 5), wherein the two holes are positioned closer to the upper end than to the lower end (FIG 1).
As to claim 30, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 7, wherein when in use, the front face faces away from a wearer and toward a ball, and the rear face faces the wearer, and wherein the finger extension member is between the wearer and the ball (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, either face could be considered the front face, and the extension can be held between a portion of the wearer and a ball with either face facing the ball).
As to claim 31, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein each geometrical arrangement comprises angular slots between the strands of polymer material (1b, 1c, 2b, 2c, and/ or 3a).
As to claim 33, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein: for the front face, the geometrical arrangement of the lattice structure comprises a first pattern of slots and apertures (FIG 3, the pattern is alternating lines and slots); and for the rear face, the geometrical arrangement of the additional lattice structure comprises a second pattern of slots and apertures that is similar to the first pattern (FIG 1, the pattern is also alternating lines and slots)
As to claim 34, Aoki discloses a finger extension member configured to be positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove (“Basket web and ball catching tool using the same,” title, capable of being positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, which does not show a sports glove, let alone a member in combination with a sports glove or positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove, and fig 7 shows margins of the member positioned in the back of portions of the index finger and thumb stalls), the finger extension member comprising:
an upper end and a lower end (FIGS 1-6);
a front face including a first lattice portion structure comprising a first pattern of strands of a polymer material and angular slots (the combination of 2 and 3 is the front face and 1 is the rear face; the strands are 2d in FIG 2 and the material between slots 3a in FIG 3 and the angular slots are 2b as shown in FIG 2; col 4 line 25-40 discloses polymer materials: “the reinforcing member may be made of PVC, nylon resin, rubber- based resin, silicon resin, nonwoven fabric, cloth, knitting fabric or the like, and a raw material thereof is not particularly limited,” the strands being the material between the six slits 3a); and
a rear face including a second lattice portion structure comprising a second pattern of strands of a polymer material (the combination of 2 and 3 is the front face and 1 is the rear face, the strands are 1d, see modification below regarding polymer);
wherein the first pattern is similar to the second pattern (3 and 1 have the similar pattern of parallel lines).
Aoki discloses the second lattice structure comprises a second pattern of strands of leather or artificial leather (col 4 line 25-35), but does not expressly disclose polymer.
It is known in the art to provide artificial leather made from polymer.
Okazaki teaches artificial leather is composed of polymer (Okazaki abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would understand that Aoki’s artificial leather is obviously a polymer material, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Aoki’s geometrical arrangement of strands in a polymer material, for the purpose of providing a known type of artificial leather to achieve the desired aesthetics and/ or functional properties.
As to claim 36, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure is formed with additive manufacturing. The recitation “formed with additive manufacturing” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I). Furthermore, Applicant has not provided evidence that the polymer taught by the references has a different structure or function than the polymer of claim 36.
As to claim 37, Aoki discloses the at least one of the two opposing faces is the front face (see the rejection of claim 35 above); the geometrical arrangement comprises a first pattern of the strands of the polymer material (the pattern being parallel lines), the rear face includes a second lattice structure (1 includes a lattice structure which is the combination of slots 1c and material 1d); the second lattice structure comprises a second pattern of strands of the polymer material (the strands being 1d and/ or 2d, see modification below regarding “polymer”); and the first pattern is similar to the second pattern (3 and 1 have the similar pattern of parallel lines).
Aoki discloses the second lattice structure comprises a second pattern of strands of leather or artificial leather (col 4 line 25-35), but does not expressly disclose polymer.
It is known in the art to provide artificial leather made from polymer.
Okazaki teaches artificial leather is composed of polymer (Okazaki abstract).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would understand that Aoki’s artificial leather is obviously a polymer material, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Aoki’s geometrical arrangement of strands in a polymer material, for the purpose of providing a known type of artificial leather to achieve the desired aesthetics and/ or functional properties.
As to claim 39, Aoki discloses a first hole closer to the upper end than a second hole (FIG 1 shows the top row of holes 1a is closer to the upper end than the bottom row of holes 1a).
As to claim 42, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 34, wherein the finger extension member is configured to limit movement of a user's pinky finger when the finger extension member and the user's pinky finger are positioned in the finger stall (capable of limiting movement, e.g., when the member is positioned in the finger stall it limits lateral movement of the fingers by providing a physical barrier between the fingers and thumb).
As to claim 45, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein each lattice structure includes slots (1b, 1c, 2b, 2c, 3a), wherein some of the slots are oriented along a first direction (the slots in 1 and 3 are horizontal), and some of the slots are oriented along a second direction transverse to the first direction (the slots in 2 are vertical).
As to claim 46, Aoki discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein, for each lattice structure, the strands include strands intersecting each other and integral with each other (the strands of each layer are integral, and the strands of different layers intersect such as the strands of layers 1 and 2 or the strands of layers 2 and 3).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 29-31, 33, 36, 39-41, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 5379459 A).
As to claim 1, Williams discloses a finger extension member configured to be positioned in a finger stall of a sports glove (combination of 38 and 47, which reinforce thumb stall 18 and/ or 51 which reinforces any or all of the finger stalls 16 as disclosed in col 9 line 50-60), the finger extension member comprising:
an upper end (FIGS 2-5); and a lower end (FIGS 2-5); and a front face including a lattice structure (3 and 50 being the front face as they are in the palm side of the finger stall, the lattice structure being the combination of strands 42/ 46 and 52/ 54); and a rear face including an additional lattice structure (47); wherein each lattice structure includes a geometrical arrangement of strands of a polymer material (strands 42/ 46, 52/ 54, and 47; col 7 line 40-65 discloses polymer material, see modification below regarding “strands,” plural).
Williams discloses the front face has plural strands 42/ 46 and 52/ 54, but disclose the rear face has only a single strand 47.
The purpose of Williams’ strands/ braces is to impart rigidity to the finger stalls to direct the wearer’s fingers in the desired direction. One of ordinary skill would recognize that more or fewer strands/ braces could be provided on the front or rear face to provide the desired degree of rigidity (e.g., to make the pinching mechanism described in col 8 line 40-45 easier or harder depending on the needs of the wearer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate 38 and replace 47 with the duplicate 38, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide at least an additional strand/ brace on the rear face (such as the lattice structure of the front face) to result in the rear face including a geometrical arrangement of strands, plural, of polymer material.
As to claim 5, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein the lattice structure of the front face is a first layer of the finger extension member, the additional lattice structure of the rear face is a second layer of the finger extension member (38 is a layer and 47 as modified is a layer), and the finger extension member further comprises a third layer (44 is a strand/ brace between 42 and 47) including a third lattice structure between the front face and the rear face each of the front face and the rear face include a lattice portion (44 is a strand of a lattice structure).
As to claim 7, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein the finger extension member is integrated into the sports glove (“Baseball glove incorporating aramid braces,” title).
As to claim 29, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, further comprising two holes positioned to receive a lace threaded through the two holes (48 in FIG 3, are capable of receiving a lace threaded therethrough), wherein the two holes are positioned closer to the upper end than to the lower end (FIG 3).
As to claim 30, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 7, wherein when in use, the front face faces away from a wearer and toward a ball, and the rear face faces the wearer, and wherein the finger extension member is between the wearer and the ball (capable of facing, because the wearer may hold their hand palm toward their face or away from their face, and may hold a ball with their palm or block a ball with the back of their hand).
As to claim 31, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein each geometrical arrangement comprises angular slots, but not angular slots.
The slots are the apertures 48, but Williams discloses they are circular and not “angular.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the member to work equally well with circular or angular slots, as slots of either shape will function to provide an opening to insert a lace to anchor the extension member to the glove (Williams col 7 line 20-25). Furthermore, Applicant’s disclosure is silent as to why the angular slots would be advantageous over any other slot shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the slots to be angular, for the purpose of providing the desired aesthetics.
As to claim 33, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein:for the front face, the geometrical arrangement of the lattice structure comprises a first pattern of slots and apertures (the slot being the recess between raised braces 42/ 46 and 52/ 54; and there are five elements 48, which may be considered slots and/ or apertures); and for the rear face, the geometrical arrangement of the additional lattice structure comprises a second pattern of slots and apertures that is similar to the first pattern (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, 38 is duplicated on the rear face and has a “similar” pattern as 38).
As to claim 36, Willaims discloses the lattice structure is formed with additive manufacturing (The recitation “formed with additive manufacturing” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 39, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 29, wherein a first hole of the two holes is positioned closer to the upper end than a second hole of the two holes (FIG 3, the uppermost hole is the first hole and one of the other holes is the second hole).
As to claim 40, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 7, wherein the finger extension member is a pinky finger extension member configured to coincide with a user's pinky finger (the term “pinky” does not lend any particular structure to the finger extensions member, the finger extension member is capable of being a pinky finger extension member; 38 and 47 may “coincide” with a user’s pinky finger and 51 may “coincide” with the pinky finger by being provided in the pinky finger stall).
As to claim 41, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 40, wherein the pinky finger extension member is configured to limit movement of the user's pinky finger (capable of limiting movement of the pinky finger, the glove in combination with the member will limit the ability of the pinky finger to move relative to the other fingers and hand portions).
As to claim 47, Williams discloses the finger extension member of claim 1, wherein the finger extension member is not a web of a baseball or softball glove (see Williams FIGS).
Conclusion
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732