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 response of 8/12/25 has been received. Claims 1, 11-13, and 17 are currently amended, and claim 22 is newly submitted. Two replacement drawing sheets and a specification amendment are also received. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/12/25. These drawings are entered in part, as Figure 3 is entered. Figures 1 and 2 are not acceptable as they incorporate new matter as outlined in the specification objection and the rejections under 35 USC 112a as they include reference number 11 delineating a wrist area.
Specification
The amendment filed 8/12/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because the amendments to paragraph 35 introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The amendments to paragraph 34 and 37 are entered. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Paragraph 35 teaches pads 18 positioned proximate a wrist area 11 of the glove 10. As shown in FIG.2, the one or more pads 19 covers at least an upper palm area of the palm of the hand that is proximate to one or more glove fingers (index finger 20, middle finger 22, the ring finger 24 and the pinkie finger 26).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 21, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,452,321 in view of Meltzner (U.S. 8,769,714) and McCrane (U.S. 10,124,238) and Gibby (U.S. 8,950,015).
The limitations of claim 1 are set forth in claims 1 and 6 of ‘321 as follows: A glove comprising four glove fingers, at least one glove finger having a palm side and a back side, the at least one glove finger having three bend regions configured to correspond to knuckles of a hand of a wearer of the glove (The ‘321 reference doesn’t explicitly recite at least one glove finger having three bend regions; however, since the bend regions are disclosed in the pending application as not associated with any particular structure and the glove finger extends fully over a wearer’s finger when worn, then those three regions of the glove finger of ‘321 configured to correspond with knuckles of a wearer are considered as the three bend regions), and a segment is secured to an inner surface of the palm side of the at least one glove finger not overlapping a closest bend region of the three bend regions, the segment has an edge spaced apart from an edge of the palm side and wherein the back side comprises a first layer and a second layer secured to the first layer such that the second layer overlies at least an area of the glove configured to correspond to a knuckle of the hand of the wearer. The glove finger has a tip portion configured to correspond to a distal phalanx of a finger of the hand of the wearer when the glove is worn and the segment has an edge further spaced apart from the bend region as ‘321 teaches the segment does not overlap a bend region. The limitations of claim 2 are disclosed by claim 1 of ‘321 as follows: the glove comprises a glove thumb having a palm side and back side, the glove thumb having a bend region (the portion of the glove thumb configured to correspond to a distal interphalangeal joint of the wearer when the glove is worn) and another segment secured to an inner surface of the palm side of the glove thumb and not overlapping the bend region. However, claim 1 of the ‘321 reference doesn’t explicitly teach the glove has a palm and back panel and the segment is secured to the tip portion of the inner surface palm side and is further spaced apart from the bend region of the at least one glove finger such that it doesn’t extend downward from the tip portion beyond the closest bend region and claim 2 doesn’t explicitly recite the glove thumb segment secured to the inner surface of the palm side of the glove thumb doesn’t overlie a distal interphalangeal joint of the wearer when the glove is worn. Known glove structure includes at least a palm panel and a back panel and Meltzner teaches a glove 58 having a palm panel and back panel with glove fingers extending therefrom (see Fig.5 showing palm panel and disclosure of the glove as a conventional examination glove, surgical glove, etc known to include a back panel), and a segment 10a provided to an inner palm side of the glove at a tip portion of the glove fingers and glove thumb, and segment not overlying a distal interphalangeal joint of the wearer when the glove is worn. This configuration protects a wearer’s fingertip region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 1 of the ‘321 reference such that the glove’s thumb segment is positioned at a tip portion of the glove finger and thumb and not overlying a distal ipj of the wearer’s thumb when the glove is worn, and the segment of the at least one glove finger is secured to the tip portion of the inner surface palm side as the segment would fully protect the portion of the wearer’s finger above the bend region, particularly as claim 1 recites limitations to the segment not overlapping the bend region and Meltzner discloses the position of the segment at the tip portion and not overlapping a distal ipj ensures that the wearer’s natural range of motion is not inhibited by the segments.
Further to claims 1 and 21 of the pending application, the ‘321 reference doesn’t teach the at least one pad portion is configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers (claim 1) and the at least one pad portion is configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel (claim 21) and the plurality of pad portions provided proximate the wrist area of the glove are spaced apart from each other by a gap. Claim 1 of ‘321 doesn’t teach a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate a wrist area of the glove and McCrane teaches a glove 11 with a palm panel 14 and back panel 16, the palm panel 14 including at least one pad portion 59 configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers and configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel as the pad 59 extends across the palm area to include
central, left, and right sides palm areas of the palm panel. McCrane teaches that the pad portion 59 provides grip enhancement and/or protection of the wearer’s hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the glove of the ‘321 reference to provide the at least one pad portion as configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel proximate to one or more glove fingers and configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel, as McCrane teaches the pad will provide grip enhancement and/or protection of the hand. Gibby teaches a glove with a plurality of pad portions 120 (pads positioned at lowest part of the palm panel) configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel 110 that is proximate to a wrist area 170 of the glove. Gibby teaches these pads protect a heel of the wearer’s hand from injury. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to provide a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to a wrist area of the glove as Gibby teaches the pads will protect the heel of the wearer’s hand.
For claim 4, claim 1 of the ‘321 reference doesn’t explicitly disclose the segment and palm side of the at least one glove finger are formed of a same material. Meltzner is considered as a teaching of this limitation as the segment and glove finger are formed of resilient polymer materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ‘321 reference to recite the segment and palm side of the at least one glove finger are formed of a same material as taught by Meltzner for efficient manufacture of the glove not requiring additional materials.
For claim 5, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘321 reference teach the segment and palm side of the at least one glove finger are formed from different materials.
For claim 6, claims 1-3 of the ‘321 reference teach the different materials forming the segment and the palm side of the glove finger share at least one of an abrasion resistance, bend resistance, shear resistance, stretch damping, stretch limit, fold limit, density and porosity.
For claim 7, claim 1 of the ‘321 reference teaches the segment is adhered to the inner surface of the palm side.
For claim 11, the ‘321 reference doesn’t teach the back side of the glove and the back side of the glove thumb are formed of a stretchable material. McCrane teaches the back side of the glove 16
and back side of glove thumb 18a are formed of a stretchable material, this modification considered as an obvious modification which would enhance dexterity of the wearer’s thumb and hand.
For claim 12, claims 1 and 4 of the ‘321 reference teach the back side of the glove and back side of the glove thumb are formed of a breathable material.
For claim 13, claims 1 and 5 of the ‘321 reference teach the back side of the glove and back side of the glove thumb are formed of a woven or knitted material.
For claim 14, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘321 reference teach at least a portion of the at least one glove finger and a portion of the glove thumb are covered with a second layer of material having an increased wear resistance.
For claim 15, claims 1 and 2 of the ‘321 reference teach a second layer of material is stitched over top of a base layer of material of the back side of the glove.
For claim 22, Gibby teaches the plurality of pad portions 120 are spaced apart from each other by a gap. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the gap allows for unimpeded compression and movement of each pad as when an impact force is applied to that portion of the glove’s palm panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins such that the plurality of pad portions are spaced apart from each other by a gap, as Gibby’s pads are spaced apart by a gap and the gap is expected to allow for compression of each pad without interference from the second pad.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No.11,452,321 in view of Meltzner and McCrane (U.S. 10,124,328) and Gibby (U.S. 8,950,015).
The limitations of claim 17 are set forth in claim 7 as follows: A glove comprising a palm side and a back side, each of the palm side and back side comprising portions that extend upwardly and form at least a portion of a first glove finger portion and a second glove finger portion a third glove finger portion, a fourth glove finger portion, and a thumb glove portion (the palm side and back side finger portions and thumb portion extend upwardly from the palm and back sides), each of the first, second, third and fourth glove finger portions having a bend region, and a segment secured to an inner surface of the palm side of the each of the glove finger portions and the thumb glove portion, and not overlapping the bend region, wherein the segment has an edge that is spaced apart form an edge of the palm side of at least one glove finger, and the edge of the segment is further spaced apart from the bend region such that the segment doesn’t extend downward from the distal location beyond the bend
region and wherein the palm side of the first, second, third, and fourth glove portions are joined to the back side portions of the first, second, third, and fourth glove fingers by boxed fourchettes. The ‘321 reference doesn’t explicitly recite the segment and palm side are formed of the same material and the fingers and thumb segments at a distal location configured to correspond to a distal phalanx of a finger or thumb of a hand of a wearer. Meltzner teaches a glove 58 having a palm panel and back panel with glove fingers extending therefrom (see Fig.5 showing palm panel and disclosure of the glove as a conventional examination glove, surgical glove, etc known to include a back panel), and a segment 10a provided to an inner palm side of the glove at a tip portion of the glove fingers and glove thumb such that the segment doesn’t extend downward from the distal location beyond the bend region. This configuration protects a wearer’s fingertip region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 7 of the ‘321 reference such that the glove’s thumb segment and finger portion segments are at a distal location configured to correspond to a distal phalanx of a finger or thumb of a hand of a wearer as the segments would fully protect the portion of the wearer’s finger above the bend region, particularly as claim 7 recites limitations to the segments not overlapping the bend region and the position of the segment at the distal location is expected to provide adequate segment extent for the distal part of the wearer’s finger while ensuring that the wearer’s natural range of motion is not inhibited by the segments. McCrane teaches a glove 11 with a palm panel 14 and back panel 16, the palm panel 14 including at least one pad portion 59 configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers and configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel 14. McCrane teaches that the pad portion 59 provides grip enhancement and/or protection of the wearer’s hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the glove of the ‘321 reference to provide the at least one pad portion as configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel proximate to one or
more glove fingers and configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel as McCrane teaches the pad will provide grip enhancement and/or protection of the hand. Claim 7 of the ‘321 reference doesn’t teach at least one pad portion provided on the palm side and configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm side that is proximate to the first glove finger portion, the second glove finger portion, the third glove finger portion, and the fourth glove finger portion and a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm side that is proximate a wrist area of the glove as set forth in claim 17. Gibby teaches a glove with a plurality of pad portions 120 (pads positioned at lowest part of the palm panel) configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel 110 that is proximate to a wrist area 170 of the glove. Gibby teaches these pads protect a heel of the wearer’s hand from injury. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to provide a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to a wrist area of the glove as Gibby teaches the pads will protect the heel of the wearer’s hand.
For claim 19, claims 7 and 8 of the ‘321 reference teaches the boxed fourchettes connect the back side and the palm side of the glove in regions between the first glove finger portion and the second glove finger portion, the second glove finger portion and third glove finger portion and the third glove finger portion and the fourth glove finger portion.
For claim 20, claims 7-9 of the ‘321 reference teaches at least a portion of the fourchettes is formed of a fabric material and at least a portion of the fourchettes is formed of a material with increased wear resistance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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. Claims 1 and 17 recite a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate a wrist area of the glove and claim 22 recites the plurality of pad portions provided proximate the wrist area of the glove are spaced apart from each other by a gap. The originally filed specification doesn’t disclose the plurality of pad portions 18 configured to cover another palm area proximate a wrist area, as proximate is a term of degree and the glove isn’t disclosed as having a wrist area. The specification broadly discloses the palm panel 18 comprising one or more pads 18 and the drawings show a gap between pads. It’s noted that the limitation doesn’t recite the plurality of pad portions attached to the glove’s palm, only that the plurality of pad portions are “configured to cover another palm area of the palm proximate a wrist area of the glove”. Claim 1 was previously amended to recite “the palm panel including at least one pad portion configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers;” and new claim 21 recites “at least one pad portion is configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel”, with these limitations considered as reciting new matter as they were not disclosed in the originally filed specification, including the drawings. This rejection may be overcome by revising claim 1 to recite a plurality of pad portions covering or configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel and the at least one pad portion covering or configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 unclear as it recites a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area that is proximate a wrist area of the glove. Since this limitation is not disclosed in the specification, there is no standard provided for ascertaining the scope of “wrist area” and “another palm area proximate a wrist area of the glove”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, 21, and 22, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaskins ‘588 in view of Meltzner (U.S. 8,769,714) and Sawyer (U.S. 4,864,660) and McCrane (U.S. 10,124,238) and Gibby (U.S. 8,950,015). Gaskins discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Gaskins teaches a glove 10 (Figs. 6A-B) comprising a palm panel and back panel, four glove fingers, at least one glove finger (middle finger) having a palm side (combined layers 30,32) at the palm panel and a back side (combined layers 30,32), and the at least one finger (middle finger) having three bend regions configured to correspond to knuckles (as disclosed in the specification, the bend regions don’t have particular structural features but are those areas of the glove that overly the wearer’s knuckles when the glove is worn), a segment 20 secured to an inner surface of the palm side at a tip portion of the at least one glove finger and, the tip portion configured to correspond to a distal phalanx of a finger of the hand of the wearer, as Gaskins teaches the segment 20 is on the fingertip section 12 of the glove finger. The segment 20 has an edge spaced apart from an edge of the palm side (at least the lower and upper edges of the segment 20 are spaced from an edge of the palm side) and the edge of the segment 20 is further spaced apart from the bend region. It appears that Gaskins’ glove is intended to allow flexing of the wearer’s hand and therefore also the glove fingers and thumb. However, Gaskins doesn’t explicitly disclose the segment as not overlapping a closest bend region of the three bend regions and the segment doesn’t extend downward beyond the closest bend region. Gaskins also doesn’t teach the back side comprises a first layer and a second layer secured to the first layer such that the second layer overlies at least an area of the glove configured to correspond to a knuckle of the hand of the wearer and the palm panel including at least one pad configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers. Meltzner teaches an analagous glove with segments 10a-e provided on an inner palm side of a glove as in Figure 5. The segments are disclosed as digit tip protection devices and do not overlap a closest bend region of the glove with Meltzner teaching the details of the segments’ extent in the embodiment of Figure 3 and col.5, lines 50-58 “proximal end 20 is adapted to cover the pulp 48 of a user’s digit 12. Preferably, the concave member 14 is sized such that the proximal end 20 extends just below (i.e. distally from) the distal interphalangeal joint 44..... Such arrangement and sizing of the digit tip protection device ensures that the natural range of motion of the digit 12 is not inhibited by the digit tip protection device 10.” Sawyer teaches a glove with a back side comprising a first layer 8 and a second layer 5 secured to the first layer such that the second layer overlies at least an area of the glove configured to correspond to a knuckle of the hand of the wearer. Sawyer teaches the protective package 4 (combination of layers 5,8) protects the back of the wearer’s hand, particularly the knuckles, from abrasion and impacts. McCrane teaches a glove 11 with a palm panel 14 and back panel 16, the palm panel 14 including at least one pad portion 59 configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers. McCrane teaches that the pad portion 59 for grip enhancement and/or protection of the wearer’s hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ segment such that it does not overlap a closest bend region of the three bend regions as Meltzner teaches such a configuration ensures that the natural range of motion of the wearer’s finger is not inhibited by the segment. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to include at least one pad portion configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers as taught by McCrane to provide grip enhancement and/or protection properties to the glove. Finally, modifying Gaskins’ glove to provide the back side comprising a first layer and second layer secured to the first layer such that the second layer overlies at least an area of the glove configured to correspond to a knuckle of the hand of the wearer is considered as obvious, as Sawyer teaches the layers form a protective structure against abrasion or impact. Further for claim 1, Gaskins doesn’t teach a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to a wrist area of the glove. Gibby teaches a glove with a plurality of pad portions 120 (pads positioned at lowest part of the palm panel) configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel 110 that is proximate to a wrist area 170 of the glove. Gibby teaches these pads protect a heel of the wearer’s hand from injury. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to provide a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to a wrist area of the glove as Gibby teaches the pads will protect the heel of the wearer’s hand.
For claim 2, Gaskins’ modified glove comprises a glove thumb having a palm side and a back side (Fig.6A,B), the glove thumb having a bend region positioned so as to not overlie a distal interphalangeal joint of the wearer when the glove is worn, and another segment 24 secured to an inner surface of the palm side of the thumb, as the segment 24 is positioned on the thumbtip as disclosed in par.10. Gaskins doesn’t explicitly disclose the segment as not overlapping the bend region. However, Meltzner teaches a segment 10 secured to an inner surface of a palm side of glove thumb as in Figure 5 such that the segment’s proximal end 20 extends just below (i.e. distally from) the distal interphalangeal joint such that it is considered as an obvious modification to provide the segment secured to an inner surface of the palm side of the thumb not overlapping the bend region so as not to inhibit natural flexion of the thumb.
For claim 4, Gaskins’ modified glove includes the segment 20 and palm side of the at least one glove finger are formed of a same material, as they are formed of abrasion resistant materials.
For claim 5, Gaskins’ modified glove includes the segment 20 and palm side of the at least one glove finger are formed from different materials as the palm side is made from fabric or leather and the segment is made from nylon (hook and loop) or metal.
For claim 6, Gaskins’ modified glove includes the different materials forming the segment and the palm side of the glove finger share abrasion resistance.
For claim 7, Gaskins teaches the segment 20 may be secured to the glove 10 but doesn’t teach the segment is adhered to the inner surface of the palm side. Modifying Gaskins’ glove such that the segment is adhered to the inner surface of the palm side is considered as an obvious modification as it’s known in the art to use various means to secure glove elements together, including adhering.
For claim 11, Gaskins’ modified glove includes the back side of the glove and back side of the glove thumb are formed of a stretchable material, as Sawyer’s glove includes the back side 2 and back side of the glove thumb formed of stretchable material such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form Gaskins’ glove so that the back side of the glove and back side of the glove thumb are formed of a stretchable material as Sawyer teaches the stretchable material provides a hand conforming fit during activity.
For claims 12 and 13, Gaskins’ modified glove includes the back side of the glove and back side of the glove thumb formed of a woven breathable material (par.53 “For example, the inner layer 30 and outer layer 32 may be constructed from a...woven fabric...” and the woven fabric is considered as breathable as it allows for ventilation between woven fiber structures).
For claims 14 and 15, Gaskins doesn’t teach at least a portion of the at least one glove finger and a portion of the glove thumb are covered are covered with a second layer of material having an increased wear resistance, wherein the second layer is stitched over top of a base layer of material on the back side of the glove. As discussed with regard to claim 1, Sawyer teaches at least a portion of the at least one glove finger 2 and a portion of the glove thumb 3 are covered with a second layer of material (cowhide) 5 having an increased wear resistance, as layer 5 also covers at least one glove finger as in Figure 1, and the second layer is stitched (at 12) over top of a base layer 8 on the back side of the glove. Sawyer teaches the glove thumb includes protective package 7 formed by the second layer 5 stitched at 16 to the back side of the thumb 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to provide at least a portion of the at least one glove finger and a portion of the glove thumb as covered with a second layer of material having an increased wear resistance, wherein the second layer is stitched over top of a base layer of material on the back side of the glove to protect those areas of the wearer’s hand from impact and abrasion as taught by Sawyer.
For claim 21, Gaskins’ modified glove includes the at least one pad 59 configured to cover at least a side palm area of the palm panel as the pad 59 extends across the palm area to include central, left, and right sides palm areas of the palm panel.
For claim 22, Gaskins’ glove doesn’t include the plurality of pad portions are spaced apart from each other by a gap. Gibby teaches the plurality of pad portions 120 as addressed above in the rejection of claim 1 are spaced apart from each other by a gap. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the gap allows for unimpeded compression and movement of each pad as when an impact force is applied to that portion of the glove’s palm panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins such that the plurality of pad portions are spaced apart from each other by a gap, as Gibby’s pads are spaced apart by a gap and the gap is expected to allow for compression of each pad without interference from the second pad.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaskins ‘588 ivo Mattesky ‘990 and McCrane (U.S. 10,124,238) and Gibby (U.S. 8,950,015). Gaskins discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 17, Gaskins discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Gaskins teaches a glove 10 (Figs. 6A-B) comprising a palm side (combined layers 30,32) and a back side (combined layers 30,32), each of the palm side and back side comprising portions that extend upwardly and form at least a portion of a first glove finger portion, a second glove finger portion, a third glove finger portion, a fourth glove finger portion, and a thumb glove portion (see Fig.6A illustrating thumb glove portion and glove finger portions extending upwardly from palm and back sides to form fingers, as the finger portions and thumb are not labelled), each of the first through fourth glove finger portions having a bend region and a segment 20 secured to an inner surface of the palm side of the each of the glove finger portions and the thumb glove portion at a distal location configured to correspond to a distal phalanx of a finger or thumb of a hand of the wearer and not overlapping the bend region (a region below the segment is considered as the bend region) as Gaskins teaches the segment 20 is on the fingertip section 12 of each glove finger (disclosed in the abstract and with regard to the embodiment of Figure 1, with the orientation of the segments on each glove finger being the same for each embodiment). The segment 20 has an edge spaced apart from an edge of the palm side of at least one glove finger (at least an upper edge of the segment is spaced from an edge of the palm side of at least one glove finger) and the edge of the segment 20 is further spaced apart from the bend region such that the segment 20 doesn’t extend downward from the distal location beyond the bend region (as previously indicated, the bend region is the region below the segment 20). The segment 20 and the palm side of the glove finger portions are formed of the same material as the palm side of the finger portions is formed from fabric or leather and the segment 20 is formed from nylon or metal, with all the materials being the same as they are protective and wear resistant materials. However, Gaskins doesn’t teach the palm side of the first, second, third and fourth glove finger portions are joined to the back side portions of the first, second, third and fourth glove fingers by boxed fourchettes (claim 17), and the boxed fourchettes connect the back side and palm side of the glove in regions between the first and second glove finger portion, the second glove finger portion and third glove finger portion, and the third glove finger portion and the fourth glove finger portion (claim 19), and at least a portion of the fourchettes is formed of a fabric material and at least a portion of the fourchettes is formed of a material with increased wear resistance (claim 20). Mattesky teaches a glove 100 or 300 with boxed fourchettes 122 and as par.29 discloses “Along the edges of the fingers 302b-d, there can be fourchettes (not shown) arranged to increase comfort. The fourchettes may be constructed of spandex...or similar stretchable material. The spandex material provides for the glove to fit snuggly in the finger area because it stretches and also provides a source of stress relief.” The fourchettes disclosed with regard to fingers 302b-d join palm side portions of the first, second, and third glove fingers to back side portions of the first, second, and third glove fingers and the boxed fourchettes connect the back side and palm side of the glove in regions between the first finger portion and second finger portion, the second finger portion and the third finger portion. Providing an additional fourchette in the region between the third finger portion and fourth finger portion to join respective back side and palm sides of the glove in that region is considered as obvious to provide the same benefits as the fourchettes provided along edges of the fingers 302b-d, these benefits including additional room in each glove finger for flexibility and movement of the wearer’s finger and reducing stresses at the finger seams. At least a portion of the fourchettes is formed of a fabric material and at least a portion is formed of a material with increased wear resistance, as the fourchettes are formed from spandex which is a fabric material considered to have an increased wear resistance property. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Gaskins to provide the boxed fourchettes as set forth in claim 17, 19, and 20 as Mattesky teaches the inclusion of fourchettes provides increased comfort and relieves seam stresses between the palm and back side finger portions of the glove. Further for claim 17, Gaskins doesn’t teach at least one pad portion provided on the palm side and configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm side that is proximate to the first glove finger portion, the second glove finger portion, the third glove finger portion, and the fourth glove finger portion and a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to a wrist area of the glove. McCrane teaches a glove 11 with a palm panel 14 and back panel 16, the palm panel 14 including at least one pad portion 59 configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm side that is proximate to the first glove finger portion, the second glove finger portion, the third glove finger portion, and the fourth glove finger portion as in Figure 6. McCrane teaches that the pad portion 59 for grip enhancement and/or protection of the wearer’s hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ segment such that it does not overlap a closest bend region of the three bend regions as Meltzner teaches such a configuration ensures that the natural range of motion of the wearer’s finger is not inhibited by the segment. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to include at least one pad portion configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to one or more glove fingers as taught by McCrane to provide grip enhancement and/or protection properties to the glove. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to include at least one pad portion configured to cover at least an upper palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to the first glove finger portion, the second glove finger portion, the third glove finger portion, and the fourth glove finger portion as taught by McCrane to provide grip enhancement and/or protection properties to the glove. Gibby teaches a glove with a plurality of pad portions 120 (pads positioned at lowest part of the palm panel) configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel 110 that is proximate to a wrist area 170 of the glove. Gibby teaches these pads protect a heel of the wearer’s hand from injury. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaskins’ glove to provide a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate to a wrist area of the glove as Gibby teaches the pads will protect the heel of the wearer’s hand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks of 8/12/25 have been considered. Applicant submits that McCrane teaches pad portion 59 for grip enhancement and protection of the wearer’s hand and pad portion 59 is configured to cover the palm panel that is proximate the one or more glove fingers and further submits that McCrane does not disclose, teach or suggest a plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate a wrist area of the glove. Gibby is used in the rejections as outlined above as a teaching of the plurality of pad portions configured to cover another palm area of the palm panel that is proximate a wrist area of the glove.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732