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
This is in response to amendment received on 12/01/25. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended, claims 13-15 have been withdrawn and claims 41-44 have been newly amended. Claims 1, 17 and 41-44 are examined herein.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 41 and 44 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 41 and 44 are directed to a handpad wherein a little finger though-hole and the index-finger insertion point are arranged at opposite distal corners of the handpad, which is a non-illustrated embodiment of the invention and not what is disclosed in elected figures 1-7.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 34-39 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support needs to be provided for “thenar region of the palm” as found in claim 1, there is support in the specification for hypothenar region, but this is a different region of a user’s hand.
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 43 and the claims that depend therefrom 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. It is unclear how “the top edge” and “the bottom edge” are associated with the pad. Further there is a lack on antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 and the claims that depend therefrom 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. It is unclear what “a top edge” and “a bottom edge” are in the last paragraph of claim 43. Are these different top and bottom edges than those previously recited in claim 43? It is unclear how many top and bottom edges are required by the claim. Further, it is unclear what the last instance of “the top edge” is referring to, since two top edges are previously presented in the claim.
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, 17, 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smerdon, Jr. (US 6,341,376) in view of Swart et al. (US 2019/0269182).
In regard to claim 1, Smerdon, Jr. teaches a handpad configured to be worn on a palm of a hand connected to a wrist (figures 1 and 2), the handpad comprising: a handpad body (figure 5), the handpad body comprising: a hand-facing surface configured to be in contact with the hand when worn (see figure 1); an exterior surface opposite the hand-facing surface (see figures 1 and 5); a distal edge of the handpad body that, when worn, is arranged adjacent to the fingers of the hand (top edge: 18 and annotated figures below); a proximal edge of the handpad body opposite the top edge and arranged, when the handpad is worn, to expose at least a portion of a thenar region of the palm (bottom/lower edge: 12, and annotated figures below); an index finger insertion point configured to receive an index finger of the hand and configured as a corner of the handpad body looped to connect back to the handpad body (see forefinger protector: 22 in figures 1 and 5, and column 6, lines 9-13); a little finger insertion point configured to receive a little finger of the hand (pinky loop: 40); and a wrapping portion configured, when worn, to extend from a hypothenar region of the hand in a direction of an ulnar side of the hand to a radial edge of the wrapping portion on the back of the hand to protect at least a portion of the hypothenar region and at least a portion of the ulnar side (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
590
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an index finger edge extending from the top edge to the bottom edge (thumb edge: 16); a little finger edge opposite the index finger edge extending from the top edge to the bottom edge (ulnar edge: 14);
However, Smerdon, Jr. fails to teach the little finger insertion point configured as a through-hole in the handpad body extending from the hand-facing surface to the exterior surface.
Swart et al. teaches a protective pad wherein a little finger insertion point is configured as a through-hole in the handpad body extending from the hand-facing surface to the exterior surface (see figure 1-3 aperture 14 and flap 16, paragraphs 0041 and 0044).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the little finger insertion loop of Smerdon, Jr. with a though-hole through the pad body extending from the hand-facing surface to the interior surface of the pad as taught by Swart et al., since the little finger insertion loop of Smerdon, Jr. being a through-hole through the pad instead of a loop would provide a finger attaching point that also provides further protection to the user’s inner finger and rings (Swart et al.: paragraphs 0044).
In regard to claim 17, Smerdon, Jr. teaches wherein the handpad body comprises a closed cell rubber material (see claim 7 of Smerdon, Jr.).
However, Smerdon, Jr. fails to specifically teach the closed cell rubber material being neoprene.
Swart et al. teaches a handpad made from neoprene (paragraph 0047), which is a closed cull rubber material.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the closed cell rubber material of Smerdon, Jr. being neoprene as taught by Swart et al., since the handpad of Smerdon, Jr. being closed cell rubber neoprene, would provide a handpad that is made from a material that is durable and provides grip to the pad when objects are held thereagainst.
In regard to claim 42, Smerdon, Jr. teaches wherein the corner of the handpad body looped to connect back to the handpad body is connected to the handpad body with stitching (see figures 2 and 5 and column 6, lines 9-14).
In regard to claim 43, Smerdon, Jr. teaches a handpad to protect a palm of a hand (figures 1 and 2), the handpad comprising: a hand-facing surface configured to be in contact with the hand when worn (see figure 1); an exterior surface opposite the hand-facing surface (see figures 1 and 5); an index finger insertion point configured as a corner of the handpad body connected to the handpad body to receive an index finger of the hand (see forefinger protector: 22 in figures 1 and 5, and column 6, lines 9-13); a pinky finger insertion point (pinky loop: 40); a palm protection portion arranged between the top edge and the bottom edge; and a wrapping portion configured (see annotated figures below), when worn, to extend from a hypothenar region of the hand in a direction of an ulnar side of the hand to a radial edge of the wrapping portion on the back of the hand to protect at least a portion of the hypothenar region and at least a portion of the ulnar side (see annotated figure below); and wherein the perimeter of the handpad is defined by a top edge (top edge: 18 and annotated figures below); a bottom edge opposite the top edge (see annotated figure below and edge 12); an index finger edge extending from the top edge to the bottom edge (see annotated figures below and edge:16) and a pinky finger edge opposite the index finger edge and extending from the top edge of the bottom edge (see annotated figures below and edge: 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
590
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Smerdon, Jr. fails to teach the little finger insertion point configured as a through-hole in the handpad body extending from the hand-facing side to the exterior surface and arranged within a perimeter of the handpad and configured, when worn, to receive a pinky finger of the hand.
Swart et al. teaches a protective pad wherein a little finger insertion point is configured as a through-hole in the handpad body extending from the hand-facing side to the exterior surface and arranged within a perimeter of the handpad and configured, when worn, to receive a pinky finger of the hand (see figure 1-3 aperture 14 and flap 16, paragraphs 0041 and 0044).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the little finger insertion loop of Smerdon, Jr. with a though-hole through the pad body extending from the hand-facing surface to the interior surface of the pad as taught by Swart et al., since the little finger insertion loop of Smerdon, Jr. being a through-hole through the pad instead of a loop would provide a finger attaching point that also provides further protection to the user’s inner finger and rings (Swart et al.: paragraphs 0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Smerdon, Jr. (US 6,341,376) and Swart et al. (US 2019/0269182) fail to teach “a wrapping portion configured, when worn, to extend from a hypothenar region of the hand in a direction of an ulnar side of the hand to a radial edge of the wrapping portion on the back of the hand to protect at least a portion of the hypothenar region and at least a portion of the ulnar side.” as amended into claim 1.
It is noted that Smerdon, Jr. teaches this limitation as detailed above in the office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732