Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/218,195

TRAINING GLOVE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 05, 2023
Examiner
ARYANPOUR, MITRA
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
606 granted / 1077 resolved
-13.7% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1113
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
38.0%
-2.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1077 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 3-15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the glove component" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the glove component" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5, 8, 19, 22 are rejected on the basis that they contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. The Markush grouping of “Claim 5 recites “wherein the plurality of distinct pads includes at least a thumb pad, a ring finger pad, a pinky finger pad, and a palm pad.”; Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more flexion grooves includes intra-finger flexion grooves formed in at least one of the thumb pad, the ring finger pad, and the pinky finger pad.”; Claim 19 recites “wherein the plurality of distinct pads includes at least a thumb pad, a ring finger pad, a pinky finger pad, and a palm pad.”; and Claim 22 recites “wherein the one or more flexion grooves includes intra-finger flexion grooves formed in at least one of the thumb pad, the ring finger pad, and the pinky finger pad.” ” is improper because the Markush grouping is not a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because the recited Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives). Therefore, it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Note: If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Claims 5, 8, 19 and 22 improperly recite a “Markush group” which present uncertainty and/or ambiguity to the claimed structure. Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may amended the claim(s) to include a closed group of alternatives or alternatively cancel the claim. One acceptable form of alternative expression, which is commonly referred to as a Markush group, recites members as being “selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See Ex parte Markush, 1925 C.D. 126 (Comm’r Pat. 1925). 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, 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rumer et al (7,954,169) hereinafter (Rumer). Claim 1, Rumer discloses a training glove (glove 5), comprising: a glove portion, the glove portion having a plurality of fingers (figure 1 shows the glove having a glove portion and a plurality of fingers); and a palm portion (palm 47) affixed with the glove portion, the palm portion having one or more flexion grooves (flexibility folds 42) formed therein to allow for flexion (column 5, lines 4-14). Claim 17, as best the claim is understood, Rummer shows the palm portion (47) is formed of a palm base component (front panel or ply 11) and a palm surface component (back panel or ply 12), the palm base component being affixed to the glove component (glove component has been taken to mean glove portion), and with the palm surface component being affixed to the palm base component (figures 1-2). Claim 18, Rummer shows the palm portion (47) includes an exterior surface, the exterior surface having a plurality of distinct pads (each region of the glove includes padding) with flexion grooves (flexibility folds 42 and/or flexibility seams 43; figure 1) therebetween. Claim 19, Rummer shows the plurality of distinct pads (as noted above each region of the glove including the thumb and fingers includes padding) includes at least one of a thumb pad, a ring finger pad, a pinky finger pad, and a palm pad (figure 1). Claim 20, Rummer shows the plurality of distinct pads further includes a multi-finger pad (as shown in figure 1, the pads are formed in the fingers and thumb area). Claim 21, Rummer shows the multi-finger pad extends to surround the palm pad (as noted above, the pad extends within the fingers, thumb and palm of the glove; the flexibility seams may be evenly spaced adjacent a corresponding thumb or finger stall 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30; column 5, lines 53-63). Claim 22, Rummer shows the one or more flexion grooves (42/43) includes intra-finger flexion grooves formed in at least one of the thumb pad, the ring finger pad, and the pinky finger pad (as noted above, the pad extends within the fingers, thumb and palm of the glove; the flexibility seams may be evenly spaced adjacent a corresponding thumb or finger stall 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30; column 5, lines 53-63). Claim 23, Rummer shows the one or more flexion grooves (42/43) further includes one or more palm flexion grooves surrounding the palm pad (as shown in figure 1 the flexibility folds 42 and flexibility seams 43 surround the palm area). Claim 24, Rummer shows the palm portion (47) includes an exterior surface, the exterior surface having a plurality of distinct pads (each region of the glove includes padding) with flexion grooves (flexibility folds 42 and/or flexibility seams 43; figure 1) therebetween, and wherein the plurality of distinct pads (as noted above each region of the glove including the thumb and fingers includes padding) includes at least one of a palm pad (47) and a multi-finger pad (as shown in figure 1, the pads are formed in the fingers and thumb area), and wherein the one or more flexion grooves (flexibility folds 42 and/or flexibility seams 43; figure 1) further includes one or more palm flexion grooves surrounding the palm pad and separating the palm pad from the multi-finger pad (figure 1). Claim 25, Rummer shows the palm portion (47) includes an exterior surface, the exterior surface having at least a multi-fingered pad (each region of the glove includes padding), a thumb pad, a ring finger pad, and a pinky finger pad (as noted above, the pad extends within the fingers, thumb and palm of the glove; the flexibility seams may be evenly spaced adjacent a corresponding thumb or finger stall 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30; column 5, lines 53-63), and wherein the one or more flexion grooves (42/43) further includes inter-finger flexion grooves that separate the thumb pad, ring finger pad, and pinky finger pad from the multi-fingered pad (figures 1-4 show the flexibility folds and seams separate the figure pads). Claim 26, Rummer shows the one or more flexion grooves (42/43) further includes a palm flexion groove, inter-finger flexion grooves, and intra-finger flexion grooves, such that each of the inter-finger flexion grooves, palm flexion groove, and intra-finger flexion grooves have widths, wherein the width of the inter-flexion groove is greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves (figure 1 shows the width of the inter-flexion grooves are greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves). Claim 27, Rummer further shows the width of the one or more palm flexion grooves is greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves (figure 1 shows the width of the palm flexion grooves are greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves). 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 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumer et al (7,954,169) hereinafter (Rumer) in view of Morejon (12,201,173). Claim 2, Rumer shows the plurality of fingers (finger stalls 15, 20, 25, and 30) includes at least an index finger and a middle finger (figure 1), with the palm portion (47) being a rubber pad (an inner portion of the glove 5 can include an inner liner (not shown) fastened to front ply 11 so that appropriate padding or filler (not shown) may be inserted therebetween) that is formed such that there exists no flexion grooves between the index finger and middle finger (figure 1 shows that there are no flexion grooves between the index and middle fingers). Rumer discloses the claimed device with the exception of the inner pad being formed of rubber. However, as disclosed by Morejon (column 4, lines 33-39) it is known in the art to form the glove padding from rubber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed Rumer’s padding from material such as rubber given that Morejon teaches such a material is configured to cushion and provide shock absorption to protect the hands of the user. Claim 3, as best the claim is understood, Rummer shows the palm portion (47) is formed of a palm base component (front panel or ply 11) and a palm surface component (back panel or ply 12), the palm base component being affixed to the glove component (glove component has been taken to mean glove portion), and with the palm surface component being affixed to the palm base component (figures 1-2). Claim 4, Rummer shows the palm portion (47) includes an exterior surface, the exterior surface having a plurality of distinct pads (each region of the glove includes padding) with flexion grooves (flexibility folds 42 and/or flexibility seams 43; figure 1) therebetween. Claim 5, Rummer shows the plurality of distinct pads (as noted above each region of the glove including the thumb and fingers includes padding) includes at least one of a thumb pad, a ring finger pad, a pinky finger pad, and a palm pad. Claim 6, Rummer shows the plurality of distinct pads further includes a multi-finger pad (as shown in figure 1, the pads are formed in the fingers and thumb area). Claim 7, Rummer shows the multi-finger pad extends to surround the palm pad (as noted above, the pad extends within the fingers, thumb and palm of the glove; the flexibility seams may be evenly spaced adjacent a corresponding thumb or finger stall 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30; column 5, lines 53-63). Claim 8, Rummer shows the one or more flexion grooves (42/43) includes intra-finger flexion grooves formed in at least one of the thumb pad, the ring finger pad, and the pinky finger pad (as noted above, the pad extends within the fingers, thumb and palm of the glove; the flexibility seams may be evenly spaced adjacent a corresponding thumb or finger stall 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30; column 5, lines 53-63). Claim 9, Rummer shows the one or more flexion grooves (42/43) further includes one or more palm flexion grooves surrounding the palm pad (as shown in figure 1 the flexibility folds 42 and flexibility seams 43 surround the palm area). Claim 10, Rummer further shows the one or more palm flexion grooves (42/43) separate the palm pad from the multi-finger pad (figure 1 shows the palm pad is separated from the finger pads). Claim 11, Rummer shows the one or more flexion grooves further includes inter-finger flexion grooves that separate the finger pads from the multi-fingered pad (figures 1-4 show the flexibility folds and seams separate the figure pads). Claim 12, Rummer shows each of the inter-finger flexion grooves, one or more palm flexion grooves, and intra-finger flexion grooves have widths, such that the width of the inter-flexion groove is greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves (figure 1 shows the width of the inter-flexion grooves are greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves). Claim 13, Rummer further shows the width of the one or more palm flexion grooves is greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves (figure 1 shows the width of the palm flexion grooves are greater than the width of intra-flexion grooves). Claim 14, Rummer shows the plurality of fingers includes at a pinky finger (30; figure 1), and wherein a finger attachment is affixed with the pinky finger, the finger attachment (as shown in figure 1, the fingers are connected using attachment mechanism 17 e.g. lacing; column 3, lines 65-67 and column 4, lines 1-9) being adapted to allow a user to selectively connect the finger attachment with an adjacent ring finger to affix the ring and pinky fingers together. Claim 15, rummer shows the palm portion (47) includes a ring finger portion (25) and a pinky finger portion (30), the palm portion being formed such that the ring finger portion (25) is affixed adjacent to the pinky finger portion (30; figure 1). Claim 16, Rummer shows the plurality of fingers includes at a pinky finger (30; figure 1), and wherein a finger attachment is affixed with the pinky finger, the finger attachment (as shown in figure 1, the fingers are connected using attachment mechanism 17 e.g. lacing; column 3, lines 65-67 and column 4, lines 1-9) being adapted to allow a user to selectively connect the finger attachment with an adjacent ring finger to affix the ring and pinky fingers together. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hyland (US2020/0077723A1); McNamee (9,211,467); Weiser (5,664,260). 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, Thurs, 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/ 29 November 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594486
BILLIARDS BALL RACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576323
BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL HITTING TRAINING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569737
REBOUNDER SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569743
Portable Sports Rack And Delivery System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12485327
CRICKET BAT SWING TRAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+33.8%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1077 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month