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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukamoto et al (7,891,017) hereinafter (Tsukamoto).
Claim 1, Tsukamoto discloses a training attachment for a baseball glove (figure 1), comprising:
a durable pad (catching assisting portion 20 may include 21-24; figures 3-76 which show the pads may have different configurations) having a width and a thickness that are substantially equal and a length that is about two to about three times the width or the thickness; and a glove attachment fastener for fastening the durable pad to the baseball glove ( as shown throughout the figures the catching assisting portions i.e. pads can have different shape and sizes. For example, in figure 28, the pads are substantially triangular shape, the width of the upper section of the pads are substantially the same as the thickness of the pad and the length is at least two times greater than the width and thickness; in figure 29, the bulge sections 122, 123 have substantially the same width and thickness and the length is at least two times greater; figure 39 shows the width and thickness to be substantially the same and the length at least two times greater; figure 54 shows the pads are pyramid shape and width and thickness are substantially the same in some places and the length at least two times greater; figures 65 and 66 show alternative shapes and sizes).
Claim 4,Tsukamoto shows the durable pad (20) comprises a durable outer casing surrounding a foam padding (foamed polyethylene).
Claim 5, Tsukamoto shows the durable outer casing is leather (figure 16; column 33, lines 60-67).
Claim 6, Tsukamoto discloses in a baseball glove, comprising; a thumb, pinky, ring finger, palm and an index finger portion and a pocket region (pocket region 90), figure 1; a first training attachment (21 positioned at the base of thumb); a second training attachment (23 positioned at base of the ring finger); a third training attachment (24 positioned at the base of the little finger which is substantially on the palm portion; figure 1);
wherein the first, second, and third training attachments are positioned relative to each other to define and bound the pocket region (figure 1 shows the pads are positioned relative to each other); and
wherein the first, second, and third training attachments are dimensioned to prevent comfortable catching of a baseball when the baseball contacts a region where the respective training attachment is fastened (as taught by Tsukamoto the pads are used to prevent a ball from being accidentally released).
Claim 9, during normal use and operation of the Tsukamoto device, the method steps set forth by applicant in the claim is inherently provided. The steps including: fastening at least one training attachment of claim 1 to a baseball glove with the glove attachment fastener; wearing the baseball glove; and catching a baseball in a pocket region abutting an index finger portion of the glove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al (7,891,017) hereinafter (Tsukamoto) in view of Falone et al (7,171,696) hereinafter (Falone).
Claim 3,Tsukamoto shows the glove attachment are fastened to the glove by sewing. Tsukamoto discloses the claimed device with the exception of the glove attachments being fastened using laces. However, as disclosed by Falone (figure 9, column 6, lines 52-59) it is known in the art to fasten glove attachments to the glove by durable lacing instead of stitching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary to have used lacing for attaching Tsukamoto’s glove attachments given that Falone teaches such is known method of attachment for the glove attachments.
Claim 7, Tsukamoto shows the first, second and third glove attachment are fastened with durable laces passing through apertures formed around a perimeter of the respective durable pad and through pre-existing apertures formed in the baseball glove (note the rejection of claim 3. With regards to the pre-existing apertures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected pre-exiting apertures instead of forming new apertures).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al (7,891,017) hereinafter (Tsukamoto).
Claim 11, Tsukamoto shows the catching assisting portion i.e. pad may be formed in different shapes and sizes. As seen in the figures, the width of the pad varies depending on the shape of the pad. Tsukamoto teaches that the height of the pads can range from at least 6.15 mm to at most 26.6 mm. As viewed in the figures the width in some figures is about the same or greater than the thickness. The Examiner takes Official Notice that changing the size of the pad in order to meet its intended purpose is old and well known. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12, Tsukamoto shows in the figures that the thickness or height of the catching assisting portion i.e. pads can range from at least 6.15 mm to at most 26.6 mm which is substantially the same as the claimed range. The Examiner takes Official Notice that changing the size of the pad in order to meet its intended purpose is old and well known. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13, Tsukamoto shows the catching assisting portion i.e. pad may be formed in different shapes and sizes. As seen in the figures, the width of the pad varies depending on the shape of the pad. Tsukamoto teaches that the height of the pads can range from at least 6.15 mm to at most 26.6 mm. As shown in the figures the length of the pad is greater than the with and thickness. More specifically in figure 32, the length appears to be about 4 inches long, and in figure 38 the pads also appear to be about 4 inches long. The Examiner takes Official Notice that changing the size of the pad in order to meet its intended purpose is old and well known. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments filed on 31 October 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. With regards to the Tsukamoto reference forming small protrusions (maximum 1.05 inches), it is respectfully asserted that the 26.6 mm (1.05”) is the thickness and not the overall dimension of the catching assisting portions i.e. pads. As noted above, the size and shape of the pads disclosed by Tsukamoto may vary and as can be seen in the figures, the pads are more than a “small protrusion” as applicant appears to be suggesting. With regards to applicant’s assertion that the Tsukamoto reference does not create obstacles that define a “target zone”, the main purpose/use of the Tsukamoto device is to provide a ball catching tool that can reduce ball catching failures. As for defining a “target zone”, the application as filed does not disclose forming or creating a “target zone”, this recitation is new to this application. Furthermore, defining a target zone is a broad term, any marking of any size or shape can be considered a target zone. In conclusion, it is the examiner’s position that the Tsukamoto reference reads on the pending claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
27 February 2026