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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/17/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the fourth sentence refers to purported merits of the invention (“The glove is convenient and safe...”). Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“having a 100 parts” (claim 1, line 2) should be changed to --having 100 parts--;
“agent, 0.5-3.0 parts” (claim 1, line 4) should be changed to --agent, and 0.5-3.0 parts--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Steward in view of Cui
Claim 1, 3-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080005827 A1 (“Steward”) in view of US 20200024438 A1 (“Cui”).
Steward pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). Cui pertains to a water-soluble shopping bag (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Cui is not in the same field of endeavor, Cui is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns water-soluble materials.
Regarding claim 1, Steward discloses a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3, glove 10) comprising:
a. a water-soluble material (Fig. 3, first water soluble layer 12 and second water soluble layer 14 are sealed along their perimeters (at seams 15); ¶¶ 0016, 0021-0022);
and b. a shape capable of covering a dominant hand portion of an individual for hygienic wiping of a surface area, wherein the shape is a glove for disposal into toilet water (Fig. 3, glove 10 has a glove shape capable of covering a dominant hand portion, capable of hygienic wiping of a surface, and capable of disposal into toilet water because it is water soluble; ¶¶ 0016, 0021-0022; Examiner notes that this limitation is very broad as it refers to a “glove shape”, which may refer to various glove shapes known in the art).
Steward does not explicitly disclose:
a water-soluble material having [] 100 parts polyvinyl alcohol, 8-20 parts composite plasticizer, 10-30 parts polysaccharide derivative, 1-5 parts processing aid, 0.1-0.5 parts film slipping agent, [and] 0.5-3.0 parts film anti- blocking agent.
However, the Steward/Cui combination makes obvious this claim.
Cui discloses:
a water-soluble material having [] 100 parts polyvinyl alcohol, 8-20 parts composite plasticizer, 10-30 parts polysaccharide derivative, 1-5 parts processing aid, 0.1-0.5 parts film slipping agent, [and] 0.5-3.0 parts film anti- blocking agent (Abstr.; ¶ 0006, claim 1, disclosing a water-soluble material having the exact chemical composition recited).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Cui with Steward by modifying the water-soluble glove of Steward to use the water-soluble material taught by Cui. Steward contemplates using various types and compositions of water-soluble materials for the disposable glove, including materials primarily composed of polyvinyl alcohol (Steward ¶ 0022, “Desirably, the water-soluble material comprises polyvinyl alcohol”; ¶¶ 0023-0032). Cui’s disclosure of the recited water-soluble material composition is in the context of a disposable, water-soluble shopping bag (Cui Abstr.; Fig. 1; claim 1; ¶¶ 0002). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification because the benefits of using Cui’s material would have the same predicable results when used as a disposable, water-soluble glove (Cui ¶¶ 00027-0031, claiming the benefits of higher biodegradability, lower pollution, lower production cost, higher material strength, and better cold water solubility compared to the prior art).
Regarding claim 3, the Steward/Cui combination makes obvious the glove of claim 1 as applied above. Steward further discloses the glove having a shape selected from the group consisting of a rectangle glove, a thumbed-mitten glove, a fingered glove and combination thereof (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0016, five-fingered glove 10).
Regarding claim 4, the Steward/Cui combination makes obvious the glove of claim 3 as applied above. Steward further discloses wherein the fingered glove has 1 to 5 fingers (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0016, five-fingered glove 10).
Regarding claim 10, the Steward/Cui combination makes obvious the glove of claim 1 as applied above. Steward further discloses the glove having a mitten, a flared rectangular, or a five-finger shape designed for quickly clutching waste matter when capturing pet feces upon complete defecation (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0016, five-fingered glove 10 is capable of use in the recited manner).
Steward in view of Cui and Dennis
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080005827 A1 (“Steward”) in view of US 20200024438 A1 (“Cui”) and US 20120216329 A1 (“Dennis”).
Steward pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). Cui pertains to a water-soluble shopping bag (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Dennis pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-D). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Cui is not in the same field of endeavor, Cui is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns water-soluble materials.
Regarding claim 5, the Steward/Cui combination makes obvious the glove of claim 4 as applied above. Steward and Cui do not explicitly disclose wherein the fingered glove has a combination outer rectangular perimeter and inner fingered inserts to allow for removal and flushing with water. However, the Steward/Cui/Dennis combination makes obvious this claim.
Dennis discloses wherein the fingered glove has a combination outer rectangular perimeter and inner fingered inserts to allow for removal and flushing with water (Fig. 1C, glove having outer rectangular perimeter with inner fingered inserts; ¶ 0019, “the disposable fabric hand cover may resemble a rectangle, a thumbed-mitten, a five-fingered glove, or a combination of these. For example, a rectangular first layer and a rectangular second layer may be sealed and perforated to form a rectangular thumbed-mitten or a rectangular five-fingered glove”, the disclosed glove is capable of performing the recited function; Examiner interprets “for removal” as pertaining to the removal of the glove from a user’s hand and not removal in other contexts, such as removal of waste material from the glove itself or removal of the glove from a dispenser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Dennis with the Steward/Cui combination by modifying the shape of the glove to have an outer rectangular perimeter with inner fingered inserts because doing so would provide more surface area for wiping without any gaps created by a glove that only has separated fingers (e.g., gaps between the fingers) and may be more efficient for certain applications, such as “while attempting to contain the fecal matter [when changing a baby’s diaper]” (Dennis ¶ 0008). Examiner notes that although Steward discusses use of the disclosed disposable glove as a liner, the Steward invention is not limited exclusively to that application as Steward states that the gloves are only “typically used in combination with an outer glove”, indicating that they can be used by themselves (Steward ¶ 0042).
Steward in view of Cui, Dennis, and Wukovnig
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080005827 A1 (“Steward”) in view of US 20200024438 A1 (“Cui”), US 20120216329 A1 (“Dennis”), and US 20210107726 A1 (“Wukovnig”).
Steward pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). Cui pertains to a water-soluble shopping bag (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Dennis pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-D). Wukovnig pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Fig. 1A). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Cui is not in the same field of endeavor, Cui is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns water-soluble materials.
Regarding claim 6, the Steward/Cui/Dennis combination makes obvious the glove of claim 5 as applied above. Steward, Cui, and Dennis do not explicitly disclose the glove having an inner or outer coating for surface area wiping wherein the outer coating is a disinfectant. However, the Steward/Cui/Dennis/Wukovnig combination makes obvious this claim.
Wukovnig discloses the glove having an inner or outer coating for surface area wiping wherein the outer coating is a disinfectant (¶ 0024, “the inventive dispensing boxes should be filled with disposable gloves that, in addition, contain one of the several germicidal or germ-growth-inhibiting substances on their interior and/or external surfaces”; ¶¶ 0025-0039, the disinfectant coating of glove 5 is capable of being used for surface area wiping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wukovnig with the Steward/Cui/Dennis combination by adding a disinfectant to the inner or outer surfaces of the glove for the purposes of killing germs that may be present on the surfaces to be cleaned or the hands themselves (Wukovnig ¶ 0038, “The listed disinfectants are currently in use in health care institutions in the form of alcohol or aqueous solutions for disinfecting hands, skin and medical products. Judging from the many publications and guidelines for hospital hygiene now available, it appears likely that the use of inventive dispensing boxes, for instance for non-sterile disposable medical gloves, and the application of disinfectants to their surfaces, will lead to a drastic reduction in nosocomial infections.”).
Regarding claim 7, the Steward/Cui/Dennis/Wukovnig combination makes obvious the glove of claim 6 as applied above. Wukovnig further discloses where the disinfectant is thymol (¶ 0032).
The obviousness rationale for claim 7 is the same as for claim 6.
Steward in view of Cui and Barranco
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080005827 A1 (“Steward”) in view of US 20200024438 A1 (“Cui”) and US 20180055113 A1 (“Barranco”).
Steward pertains to a disposable glove (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). Cui pertains to a water-soluble shopping bag (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Barranco pertains to a disposable glove (Fig. 1; ¶ 0035). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Cui is not in the same field of endeavor, Cui is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns water-soluble materials.
Regarding claim 8, the Steward/Cui combination makes obvious the glove of claim 1 as applied above. Steward and Cui do not explicitly disclose the glove having an inner coating wherein the inner coating is a dissolvable powder for hygienic wiping of a rectal surface area. However, the Steward/Cui/Barranco combination makes obvious this claim.
Barranco discloses the glove having an inner coating wherein the inner coating is a dissolvable powder for hygienic wiping of a rectal surface area (¶ 0035, “The claimed protective gloves may be...powdered with cornstarch to lubricate the gloves, making them easier to put on the hands.”; the disclosed glove having the inner coating is capable of being used in the recited manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Barranco with the Steward/Cui combination by adding an inner coating of powder (e.g., cornstarch) because doing so would “lubricate the gloves, making them easier to put on the hands” (Barranco ¶ 0035). Examiner notes that it is well known that cornstarch is dissolvable in water (see, e.g., US 20090075001 A1 (“O’Neill”) ¶ 0011, “The Flushable Toilet Paper Roll (FTPR) is comprised of cornstarch (or similar material) and is designed to quickly dissolve when placed in water.”).
Regarding claim 9, the Steward/Cui/Barranco combination makes obvious the glove of claim 8 as applied above. Barranco further discloses where the powder is cornstarch (Barranco ¶ 0035).
The obviousness rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 8.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 2 and 11-19 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected.
Specification – The objection to the abstract is sustained despite Applicant’s amendments (see objection above).
Claims – The claim objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(a) and (b) rejections of claim 9 are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments. To be clear, the rejections above rely on Cui for its disclosure of the recited chemical composition of the water-soluble material—the other secondary references discussed are not relied upon for their chemical composition.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 mischaracterizes Steward. Applicant states that “the inability to become soluble in water as discussed in Steward’s polyvinyl alcohol composition occurs at temperatures of greater than 37°C” (Reply at 4 (citing Steward ¶ 0032)). However, Steward plainly states the opposite of Applicant’s assertion: “More desirably, the one or more fabric sheets used to form the water-soluble glove liner comprise water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol fibers (e.g., water-soluble fibers comprising 100% water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol material) that are soluble in water having a water temperature of greater than about 37° C.” (Steward ¶ 0032).
Applicant’s remaining arguments pertain to the intended use or alleged benefits of the invention (Reply at 3-6). 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 re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II). Moreover, Applicant’s arguments for the alleged benefits of the claimed invention are not persuasive as these are well-known benefits of devices having similar structural elements; actual evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long felt need, failure of others, skepticism of others, copying) would be required for further consideration. MPEP § 2145; see MPEP §§ 716.01-06. It should be noted that attorney argument cannot take the place of actual evidence. MPEP §§ 716.01(c)(I)-(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723