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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 13, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on August 13, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 11 have been amended; and claims 2 and 20 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-19 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1 and 3-19.
Drawings
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 longitudinal centerline of the thumb panel (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 1 (and claims 3-10 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 1 is indefinite as it recites, “and wherein the first pleat and the second pleat are arranged substantially symmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the thumb panel.” First, it is unclear if the pleats are “substantially symmetrical” to each other or “substantially symmetrical” to the centerline. Further, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain to what degree the arrangement of the pleats can deviate from symmetrical about the centerline and still be considered substantially symmetrical. The specification does not provide further explanation as Fig. 12 shows the pleats on the thumb panel before the thumb panel is joined to the glove but no centerline and it is not clear where such a centerline would be located as the thumb panel does not have a regular shape with an easily defined centerline, and para. 0082 recites, “As shown, the pleat 360 and the pleat 370 are approximately symmetrically arranged about a longitudinal centerline of the thumb panel 300.” However, it is also unknown how one of ordinary skill can ascertain “approximately” symmetrical. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean that the pleats extend in a longitudinal direction on and are on opposite sides of a center of the thumb panel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claims 9 and 19 each recites, “wherein the thumb panel extends continuously from (a) a joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand to (b) a fingertip of the glove thumb when the glove is worn by the hand.” As such, Applicant has positively recited and claimed a human body part, because a joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand are actively being recited within a product claim. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to add functional language such as "adapted to” or “configured to” preceding any reference to a human or human body part. For example, Applicant could recite, "wherein the thumb panel is configured to extend[[s]] continuously from (a) a joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand to (b) a fingertip of the glove thumb when the glove is worn by the hand” or “wherein when the glove is worn by the hand, the thumb panel extends continuously from (a) a joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand to (b) a fingertip of the glove thumb
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 3-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Lim (US 2018/0049490, hereafter “Lim 490”), in view of Mattesky (US 2006/0005295).
Regarding claim 1, Lim 490 discloses a glove (1000) for protecting a hand of a user (as is the use of gloves), comprising: a main glove body (1100) configured to receive metacarpals of the hand (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2); and a glove thumb (1140) coupled to the main glove body and extending longitudinally away from the main glove body (as can be seen best in Figs. 1-2, the thumb body is an extension of the main body and extends longitudinally away from 1100), wherein the glove thumb is configured to receive a thumb of the hand (as understood from Figs. 1-2), and wherein the glove thumb includes a thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 2) extending longitudinally along a length of the glove thumb (see Fig. 2).
Lim 490 does not expressly disclose wherein the thumb panel forms a first pleat including compressed material of the thumb panel, the first pleat raised above an outer surface of the thumb panel and wherein the first pleat extends longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb, wherein the thumb panel forms a second pleat raised above the outer surface of the thumb panel, and wherein the second pleat extends longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb, and wherein the first pleat and the second pleat are arranged substantially symmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the thumb panel.
Mattesky teaches gloves wherein the thumb panel forms a first pleat (320 on inner thumb edge, see Fig. 8) including compressed material of the thumb panel (as the material is bunched as shown in Fig. 9), the first pleat raised above an outer surface of the thumb panel (as Mattesky discloses pleats can be convex, see final sentence of para. 0030) and wherein the first pleat extends longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein the thumb panel forms a second pleat raised above the outer surface of the thumb panel, and wherein the second pleat extends longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb, and wherein the first pleat and the second pleat are arranged substantially symmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the thumb panel, wherein the thumb panel forms a second pleat (320 on outer thumb edge in Fig. 8) raised above the outer surface of the thumb panel (as Mattesky discloses pleats can be convex, see final sentence of para. 0030), and wherein the second pleat extends longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb (as seen in Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pleats to the inner and outer sides of the thumb panel of Lim 490 as taught by Mattesky so that “when the glove is flexed, the pleats become wider to effectively increase the size of the glove without stretching the material from which it is made” thereby better conforming to the shape of the hand when flexed or relaxed (see Abstract of Mattesky).
When used in combination, as the pleats of Mattesky are shown in Fig. 8 as along the inner and outer edges of the glove thumb, then when added to Lim 490, they would also be along the inner and outer edges of the glove thumb 1140 of Lim 490, and as can be seen in Figs. 4 and 7, the inner and outer edges of the thumb are near the inner and outer seams of the attachment of the glove thumb panel 1420, thus near the edges of the glove thumb panel, and thus extend longitudinally and on opposite sides of a center of the glove thumb panel and therefore are arranged substantially symmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the glove thumb panel, as best as can be interpreted by Examiner.
Regarding claim 3, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the glove thumb (1140 of Lim 490) is configured to receive a first joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to a proximal phalanx of the thumb (see annotated Fig. 2 of Lim 490), and wherein the first pleat and the second pleat are configured to extend longitudinally across the first joint when the glove is worn by the hand (as can be seen in Fig. 8 of Mattesky as the pleats extend the most of the length of thumb).
Regarding claim 4, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the thumb panel is configured to extend along a second joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand (as the thumb panel extends down to the cuff portion, on at least one wearer, this would cover the 2nd joint that connects the thumb metacarpal to the carpals of the hand), and wherein a proximal end of the first pleat (320 on inner thumb of Mattesky) is configured to be positioned between the first joint and the second joint when the glove is worn by the hand (see para. 0032 of Mattesky wherein the pleat can be anywhere and as Examiner notes that the term "between" is very broad and has a definition of "among" (Defn. No. 5 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd." entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), this would be between the first and second joint; further, Examiner notes the glove will fit differently sized hands in different manners and an intended relative position of the structures to the wearer's hand anatomy is functional and not patentably significant).
Regarding claim 5, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein a distal end of the first pleat and a distal end of the second pleat are longitudinally offset from a fingertip of the glove thumb (see Fig. 8 and 9 of Mattesky).
Regarding claim 9, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the thumb panel extends continuously from (a) a joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand to (b) a fingertip of the glove thumb when the glove is worn by the hand (as can be seen in Fig. 3, the thumb panel which is a continuous base panel of at least the back side of the glove extends from at least the 2nd joint seen in annotated Fig. 2 to the fingertip of the thumb also seen in annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses further comprising: a first reinforcement panel coupled to the thumb panel and extending along the outer surface of the thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 1); and a second reinforcement panel coupled to the thumb panel and extending along the outer surface of the thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 7), wherein the first pleat extends directly between the first reinforcement panel and the second reinforcement panel (as either of the pleats extend longitudinally along the length of the thumb and so do the reinforcement panels, then the first pleat is directly between the reinforcement panels in at least one cross section of the thumb).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Lim 490 as modified by Mattesky, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Choi (US 2018/0310649).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified glove of Lim discloses wherein the main glove body includes a panel (1121) coupled (see Figs. 4 and 7) to the thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 2) [claim 6] wherein the panel of the main glove body is a palm panel (as can be seen in Fig. 7) configured to extend along a palm of the hand when the glove is worn by the hand (and understood from Fig. 7) [claim 7], but does not expressly disclose wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material that has a greater cut resistance than the first material [claim 6].
Choi teaches a protective glove comprising a main glove body (200) including a panel (330) coupled to a thumb panel (281/212), wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material that has a greater cut resistance than the first material (see claims 1 and 5 where the thumb panel is the third material that us more cut resistant that the body panel that is the first material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a make the thumb panel more cut resistant than the palm of the modified glove of Lim 490 as taught by Choi in order to offer greater protection to the thumb as in most cutting operations, the thumb is more exposed than the palm or back of the hand.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Lim 490 as modified by Mattesky, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Iancono (US 2020/0397075), and in view of Sweeney (US 2010/0275342).
Regarding claim 6, the modified glove of Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the main glove body includes a panel coupled to the thumb panel, wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material that has a greater cut resistance than the first material.
Iancono teaches a protective glove comprising a main glove body that includes a panel (202 or 304/308) and a separate glove panel (310) wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material (as they are different panels, they are therefore different materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thumb panel separate from the main body panel of the modified glove Lim 490 as taught by Iancono in order to create a more 3-dimentional form that better contours to the shape of the hand thereby increasing the comfort of the glove.
The modified glove of Lim 490 does not expressly disclose wherein the second material (thumb panel) has a greater cut resistance than the first material (main body panel).
Sweeney teaches protective gloves wherein the second material (UHMWPE or Kevlar on thumb 12 and fingers, see para. 0072) has a greater cut resistance than the first material (remaining parts of the glove considered less cut resistant as they are not disclosed as having increased cut resistance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a make the thumb panel of a more cut resistant than the body of the modified glove of Lim 490 as taught by Sweeny in order to offer greater protection to the thumb and fingers as in most cutting operations, the thumb and fingers are more exposed than the palm or back of the hand while using a lower cost material the body of the glove (see para. 0072 of Sweeney).
Regarding claim 8, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the panel of the main glove body (as modified to be separate by 304/308 of Sweeney) is a back panel configured to extend along a back side of the hand when the glove is worn by the hand (see Fig. 3 of Sweeney).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim 490, in view of Mattesky, in view of Sweeney.
Regarding claim 11, Lim 490 discloses a glove (1000) for protecting a hand of a user (as is the use of gloves), comprising: a main glove body (1100) configured to receive metacarpals of the hand (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2); and a glove thumb (1140) coupled to the main glove body and extending longitudinally away from the main glove body (as can be seen best in Figs. 1-2, the thumb body is an extension of the main body and extends longitudinally away from 1100), wherein the glove thumb is configured to receive a thumb of the hand (as understood from Figs. 1-2), and wherein the glove thumb includes a thumb panel extending longitudinally along a length of the glove thumb (see annotated Fig. 2), wherein the main glove body includes a panel (1121) coupled (see Fig. 7) to the thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 2), wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material (as they can be seen as two separately connected panels in Figs. 6-7, there can be at least considered different pieces of material).
Lim does not expressly disclose wherein the second material has a greater cut resistance than the first material, and a plurality of protrusions coupled to the thumb panel, wherein the protrusions are raised above an outer surface of the thumb panel, extend longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb, and are angled relative to one another so that a lateral distance between proximal ends of the protrusions is greater than a lateral distance between distal ends of the protrusions.
Mattesky teaches gloves comprising a plurality of protrusions (320 on inner and outer edges of the thumb, see Fig. 8, protruding as Mattesky discloses pleats can be convex, see final sentence of para. 0030) coupled to the thumb panel (panel creating the glove), wherein the protrusions are raised above an outer surface of the thumb panel (as Mattesky discloses pleats can be convex, see final sentence of para. 0030), extend longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb (as shown in Fig. 8), and are angled relative to one another so that a lateral distance between proximal ends of the protrusions is greater than a lateral distance between distal ends of the protrusions (as can be seen in Fig. 8, the proximal end of the inner thumb 320 and the proximal end of the outer thumb 320 are angled relative to teach other in a lateral direction of the thumb and further apart than the distal ends in the same direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add protrusions to the inner and outer sides of the thumb panel of Lim 490 as taught by Mattesky so that “when the glove is flexed, the pleats become wider to effectively increase the size of the glove without stretching the material from which it is made” thereby better conforming to the shape of the hand when flexed or relaxed (see Abstract of Mattesky).
The modified glove of Lim 490 does not expressly disclose wherein the second material has a greater cut resistance than the first material.
Sweeney teaches protective gloves wherein the second material (UHMWPE or Kevlar on thumb 12 and fingers, see para. 0072) has a greater cut resistance than the first material (remaining parts of the glove considered less cut resistant as they are not disclosed as having increased cut resistance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a make the thumb panel of a more cut resistant than the body of the modified glove of Lim 490 as taught by Sweeny in order to offer greater protection to the thumb and fingers as in most cutting operations, the thumb and fingers are more exposed than the palm or back of the hand while using a more low cost material the body of the glove (see para. 0072 of Sweeney).
Regarding claim 12, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the panel of the main glove body (as modified to be separate by 202 of Sweeney) is a palm panel configured to extend along a palm of the hand when the glove is worn by the hand (see Fig. 2 of Sweeney).
Regarding claim 14, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses further comprising: a reinforcement panel coupled to the thumb panel and extending along the outer surface of the thumb panel (see either the reinforcement panel in annotated Fig. 1 or the separate reinforcement panel in annotated Fig. 7, both of which are on the outer surface of the thumb panel).
Regarding claim 15, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the panel of the main glove body (1121) is coupled to the thumb panel along a seam (as can be seen in Figs. 4 and 7, it can be seem that 1121 is attached to 1420 along the periphery of the thumb) and wherein the reinforcement panel (reinforcement panel shown in annotated Fig. 1) covers at least a portion of the seam (as can be understood best in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the panel of the main glove body is coupled to the thumb panel along a seam, and wherein the reinforcement panel extends into the seam to couple the reinforcement panel to the thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the glove thumb (1420) is configured to receive a first joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to a proximal phalanx of the thumb, and wherein the thumb panel is configured to extend longitudinally across the first joint when the glove is worn by the hand (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the thumb panel is configured to extend longitudinally to a fingertip of the glove thumb when the glove is worn by the hand (see Figs. 1-2 and 7).
Regarding claim 19, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the thumb panel extends continuously from (a) a joint that connects the metacarpal of the thumb to carpals of the hand to (b) the fingertip of the glove thumb when the glove is worn by the hand (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 and Fig. 1 and 7).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim 490, in view of Iancono (US 2020/0397075), and in view of Sweeney.
Regarding claim 11, Lim 490 discloses a glove (1000) for protecting a hand of a user (as is the use of gloves), comprising: a main glove body (1100) configured to receive metacarpals of the hand (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2); and a glove thumb (1140) coupled to the main glove body and extending longitudinally away from the main glove body (as can be seen best in Figs. 1-2, the thumb body is an extension of the main body and extends longitudinally away from 1100), wherein the glove thumb is configured to receive a thumb of the hand (as understood from Figs. 1-2), and wherein the glove thumb includes a thumb panel extending longitudinally along a length of the glove thumb (see annotated Fig. 2),
Lim 490 does not expressly disclose wherein the main glove body includes a panel coupled to the thumb panel, wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material that has a greater cut resistance than the first material, and a plurality of protrusions coupled to the thumb panel, wherein the protrusions are raised above an outer surface of the thumb panel, extend longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb, and are angled relative to one another so that a lateral distance between proximal ends of the protrusions is greater than a lateral distance between distal ends of the protrusions.
Mattesky teaches gloves comprising a plurality of protrusions (320 on inner and outer edges of the thumb, see Fig. 8, protruding as Mattesky discloses pleats can be convex, see final sentence of para. 0030) coupled to the thumb panel (panel creating the glove), wherein the protrusions are raised above an outer surface of the thumb panel (as Mattesky discloses pleats can be convex, see final sentence of para. 0030), extend longitudinally along the length of the glove thumb (as shown in Fig. 8), and are angled relative to one another so that a lateral distance between proximal ends of the protrusions is greater than a lateral distance between distal ends of the protrusions (as can be seen in Fig. 8, the proximal end of the inner thumb 320 and the proximal end of the outer thumb 320 are angled relative to teach other in a lateral direction of the thumb and further apart than the distal ends in the same direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add protrusions to the inner and outer sides of the thumb panel of Lim 490 as taught by Mattesky so that “when the glove is flexed, the pleats become wider to effectively increase the size of the glove without stretching the material from which it is made” thereby better conforming to the shape of the hand when flexed or relaxed (see Abstract of Mattesky).
The modified glove of Lim 490 does not expressly disclose wherein the main glove body includes a panel coupled to the thumb panel, wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material that has a greater cut resistance than the first material
Iancono teaches a protective glove comprising a main glove body that includes a panel (202 or 304/308) and a separate glove panel (310) wherein the panel of the main glove body is made from a first material, and wherein the thumb panel is made from a second material (as they are different panels, they are therefore different materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thumb panel separate from the main body panel of the modified glove Lim 490 as taught by Iancono in order to create a more 3-dimentional form that better contours to the shape of the hand thereby increasing the comfort of the glove.
The modified glove of Lim 490 does not expressly disclose wherein the second material (thumb panel) has a greater cut resistance than the first material (main body panel).
Sweeney teaches protective gloves wherein the second material (UHMWPE or Kevlar on thumb 12 and fingers, see para. 0072) has a greater cut resistance than the first material (remaining parts of the glove considered less cut resistant as they are not disclosed as having increased cut resistance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a make the thumb panel of a more cut resistant than the body of the modified glove of Lim 490 as taught by Sweeny in order to offer greater protection to the thumb and fingers as in most cutting operations, the thumb and fingers are more exposed than the palm or back of the hand while using a lower cost material the body of the glove (see para. 0072 of Sweeney).
Regarding claim 13, the modified glove of Lim 490 discloses wherein the panel of the main glove body (as modified to be separate by 304/308 of Sweeney) is a back panel configured to extend along a back side of the hand when the glove is worn by the hand (see Fig. 3 of Sweeney).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Lim 490)
PNG
media_image2.png
769
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Lim 490)
PNG
media_image3.png
712
573
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 (Lim 490)
PNG
media_image4.png
531
762
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8 (Mattesky)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 31, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732