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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the periods after the letter bullets (i.e. A., B., etc.) should be deleted as each claim should include only one period mark. In addition “atleast” (i.e. in claim 1 lines 3, 39, etc.) should be recited as --at least-- to correct the typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, “sensor glove, provided” on line 11 is unclear as a sensor glove is previously claimed and should be recited as --said sensor glove is provided-- if that is what was intended. In addition, “comprises” on line 11 is unclear as it is unclear what limitation the term is directed to. Does the sensor glove or the slide system comprise the limitations following “comprises” on line 11? Similarly, “comprises” on line 24 is unclear. It is unclear whether the following limitations are directed to the motorized glove or the drive mechanism. The limitations “the change” on line 13, “the characterizing feature” on line 41, and “the torque” on line 41 lack antecedent basis. The limitation “placed in the arm of the user” on line 27 is unclear and should be recited as placed on the arm of the user” if that is what was intended. The slash (/) between words i.e. in the limitations “glove/s” on line 3, “control/circuit box” on line 14, “connector/s” on line 16, “cap/s” on line 25, “fingers/s” on line 28, “unit/mechanism” on line 31, “closure unit/mechanism” on line 40, “active/passive” on line 49, etc. in unclear. It is unclear what the slash(/) is intended to represent.
Further, the limitation “move towards back on the arm” is unclear. What direction is towards back of the arm? In addition, “cloum” on line 45 is unclear and appears to be a typographical error. It is unclear what is being claimed and what structure is directed to a cloum. The limitation, “based on requirement” on line 50 is unclear. What is based on a requirements? What is the requirement? The limitation “optionally comprises” on line 51 is unclear as it is unclear whether the limitations following “optionally” are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the slashes (/) between words of the claim is unclear as it is unclear what the slashes are intended to represent.
Regarding claim 5, the slashes (/) between words of the claim is unclear as it is unclear what the slashes are intended to represent. In addition, “configured to consists” on line 4 is unclear. It is unclear what is being claimed.
Regarding claim 7, the slashes (/) between words of the claim is unclear as it is unclear what the slashes are intended to represent.
Regarding claim 13, the slashes (/) between words of the claim is unclear as it is unclear what the slashes are intended to represent. In addition, “the tensioning wire” on line 11 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the slashes (/) between words of the claim is unclear as it is unclear what the slashes are intended to represent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 last paragraph through page 2 1st paragraph , filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the strings and metal hooks have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOYA M LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm - 6:30 pm ET.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/LaToya M Louis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785