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 .
Applicant’s response to the Final Office action and filing of RCE is acknowledged on 4/7/2026.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 13-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a “first” and “second” metacarpophalangeal joint; however, the claim fails to specify which digits these correspond to (e.g., index finger, middle finger, etc.), and no antecedent basis or structural relationship is provided linking the “the first digit aperture” and the “second digit aperture” to specific fingers. As a result, it is unclear which anatomical joints are being referenced, and thus unclear how the apertures must be positioned relative to the hand. This renders the scope of the claim ambiguous and not reasonably certain to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim recites: the first digit aperture is “configured to at least partially cover” a joint, and the second digit aperture is “configurable to at least partially expose” a joint. These limitations are unclear for several reasons: the phrase “at least partially cover” lacks objective boundaries, as no degree or extent of coverage is defined, and even minimal or incidental overlap cold satisfy the limitation. The phrase “configurable to at least partially expose” introduces ambiguity as to whether: the aperture is inherently exposing the joint, or requires adjustment or manipulation to do so.
Further, the use of “configured to” versus “configurable to” introduces inconsistent and unclear scope, as it is not reasonably clear whether these terms are intended to impose different structural requirements or merely describe capability. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably certain of the scope of these limitations.
The term “digit aperture” is unclear in scop, as it does not have a well-established meaning in the art. It is unclear whether this term encompasses” a full finger opening, a partial cutout, a slit, or any opening generally associated with a finger. Without clear structural boundaries, the term renders the claim indefinite.
The limitation “a palmar arch protrusion” is indefinite because: the term “palmar arch” refers to a complex anatomical region, but the claim does not define the location, extent, or boundaries of the protrusion relative to that region. The term “protrusion” is also relative and lacks objective criteria, as it does not specify: a required height, thickness, or shape, or how it distinguishes over ordinary glove padding. Thus, it is unclear what structure is required to meet this limitation, rendering the scope not reasonably certain.
Regarding claim 5, the term “shot alignment indicator” is indefinite because it lacks clear structural meaning and is not defined in the claim or otherwise known in the art with reasonable certainty. It is unclear whether this term encompasses: a visual marking (e.g., line, arrow), a physical structure (e.g., ridge, protrusion), or any general indicia or feature. Accordingly, the term fails to provide objective boundaries rendering the scope of the claim uncertain.
The phrase “configured to position a back side of the hand covering with respect to a target” is functional and indefinite because: it is unclear what constitutes a “target” (e.g., a golf hole, a direction, an object), as the claim provides no context or definition. The phrase “position…with respect to” lacks clarity as to the required degree of positioning, whether alignment must be precise of approximate, and what structural features enable such positioning. This results in a limitation that depends on user interpretation or intended use, rather than clear structural requirements.
The claim recites a “shot alignment indicator” that is “configured to” perform a function, but fails to recite sufficient structure or a clear relationship between the structure and the claimed function. Thus, it is unclear how the indicator structurally achieves the positioning function, contributing further to the indefiniteness.
Claims 2 and 4-9 are considered indefinite since they directly or indirectly depend on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the expression “adjacent portion of the palm side” is indefinite because: the claim does not identify which portion of the palm side serves as the reference. The term “adjacent” is a relative term without objective boundaries, making it unclear how the comparison is to be made.
The phrase “at least partially follow” is indefinite because”: it does not provide objective criteria for determining the required degree of correspondence between the protrusion and the seam. Minimal or incidental alignment could satisfy the limitation, rendering the scope uncertain.
The expression “a seam that at least partially delineates a primary palm portion and a thumb portion is indefinite because: the term “primary palm portion” lacks a clear definition or recognized meaning in the art. The phrase “at least partially delineates” is functional and does not clearly define the structural boundary. It is unclear which seam is being referenced or how it must be arranged.
Claims 13-15 and 21 are considered indefinite since they directly or indirectly depend on claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the expression “at least partially overlapping on opposite sides of the hand covering is indefinite because: the term “overlapping” is unclear for structures located on opposite sides of the hand covering. It is not reasonably clear whether “overlapping” refers to alignment through the thickness of the glove, projected alignment in a plane, or another spatial relationship. The phrase “at lest partially” lacks objective boundaries.
Regarding claim 15, the term “radial axis” is indefinite because: it is not defined and lacks a clear, established meaning in the context of a glove. It is unclear how the axis is determined or what reference frame is used. The expression “at least partially aligned” is indefinite because it does not provide objective criteria for the degree of alignment required. Minimal or incidental alignment could satisfy the limitation.
Regarding claim 16, the expression “digit aperture located at least partially between the back side and the palm side or in a thumb portion” is indefinite because: the phrase “between the back side and the palm side” is unclear, as these are opposing surfaces and do not define a discernible structural region. The alternative “or in a thumb portion” introduces ambiguity as to whether: the aperture must satisfy one or both positional requirements, and how these alternative locations are structurally distinguished. Accordingly, the location of the digital aperture is not reasonably certain.
The expression “shot alignment indicator” is indefinite because it lacks clear structural meaning. It is unclear whether the indicator is a marking, indicia, or physical structure. The claim provides no objective boundaries for what qualifies as such an indicator.
The expression “configured to indicate … an alignment … with respect to a target” is indefinite because, the term “target” is not defined and could encompass a wide range of objects or directions. The phrase “indicate … alignment” depends on user perception and lacks objective structural criteria. The claim does not specify how the structure achieves the claimed function, rendering the scope uncertain.
The expression, “a longest extent … aligned along a radial axis of the hand covering” is indefinite because: the term “radial axis of the hand covering” is not defined and does not have a clear, established meaning in the art. It is unclear how the radial axis is determined, and relative to what reference (e.g., anatomical orientation, glove geometry). Thus, the orientation of the shot alignment indicator cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claims 17-20 depend on claim 16 and they all are considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the term “substantially orthogonal” is a term of degree that lacks objective boundaries, as the claim does not specify he acceptable range of deviation from true orthogonality (e.g., 900). The phrase “longest extent” is unclear because it is not defined how the “longest extent” of the shot alignment indicator or the digit aperture is determined (e.g., liner axis, bounding dimension, visual orientation), and the geometry of the “digit aperture” may be irregular, making the reference axis ambiguous. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably certain of the required orientation relationship between the shot alignment indicator and the digit aperture.
Regarding claim 20, the expression “post-shot alignment feature” lacks clear structural meaning. It is unclear how this differs structurally from any other alignment indicator. The term appears to descript intended use of function. The expression “after the user shoots a basketball at a basketball hoop” introduces temporal and use-based limitation that do not define the structure of the glove. It is unclear how the glove is structurally configured differently before vs. after the shot. The phrase “proper positioning” is subjective and lacks objective boundaries. What constitutes “proper” positioning is not defined and may vary by user or context. The claim relies on functional, subjective, and use-based language without clear structural limitations, and therefore fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, rendering it indefinite.
An effort have been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, since the claims are replete with indefinite language, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections may not be conclusive and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second paragraph so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent No. 10,709,183) in view of Brown (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0227155).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Kim discloses a training glove (see 100 as shown in Figures 1-2), comprising: a hand covering (100) having a first digit aperture (the opening in the thumb section of the glove as shown in Figure 2) and a second digit aperture (the aperture that accommodates the index finger or any other finger as shown in Figure 2) wherein the first digit aperture is configured to at least partially cover a first metacarpophalangeal joint of a user's hand and the second digit aperture is configured to at least partially expose a second metacarpophalangeal joint of the user's hand and the first digit aperture is located in a thumb portion of the hand covering (see Figures 1-2). Kim also discloses the invention as discussed the hand covering having a back side and a palm side (the inherent back and palm section of the glove 100). Kim does not disclose a palmar arch protrusion covers a portion of the palm side. Brown is a glove that teaches the use of a protrusion that covers a portion of the palm side as recited (see for e.g., protrusion/pads 212, 212a, 340, 342 as shown in Figures 11-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to provide the Kim device with an arch protrusion as taught by the Brown reference in order to provide a glove that provides most comfortable and effective grip position as discussed in paragraph 47 of the Brown reference.
Regarding the recitation that the glove is a “training glove”, this recitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structures onto depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). It is noted also that the primary reference teaches that glove is a multipurpose glove (see abstract) and it is capable of being used as a training glove.
Regarding claims 2, wherein the second digit aperture is configured to at least partially expose a third metacarpophalangeal joint of the user's hand (Kim teaches that each finger of the hand as having a removable finger portion 3. This feature allows the second digit aperture to be exposed as recited).
Regarding claim 4, Hendon discloses the palmar arch protrusion having a thickness that is greater than an adjacent portion of the palm side (as shown in Figures 11-13 of Brown, the pads having protrusion thickness are located at some sections of the palm and some sections of the palm sections can be considered as adjacent portions).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Brown do not disclose the use of alignment indicator being positioned as discussed in the instant claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the safety glove of Kim with alignment indicator on the back side of the hand covering in order to assist the user in orienting the hand relative to a target or work direction, thereby improving positioning accuracy and promoting safer and more controlled operation. Visual indicators (e.g., lines arrows, markings) are well known in the art for guiding alignment and directional positioning of tools and body parts. Incorporating such an indicator on a glove represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely, to provide visual guidance for proper alignment. Accordingly, the modification would have been an obvious design choice yielding predictable results, including improve consistency, control, and safety.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the hand covering includes a first digit covering and a second digit covering, wherein the first digit covering and the second digit covering are configured to extend fully around digits of the user's hand (Kim teaches that each finger of the hand as having a removable finger portion 3. This feature teaches that any of the fingers could be fully covered as recited).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Brown does not explicitly teach the use of plurality of ventilation holes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the safety glove of Kim or Kim in view of Brown with a plurality of ventilation holes in order to improve breathability and reduce heat and moisture buildup within the glove, thereby enhancing user comfort and wearability during extended use. It is well known that gloves, particularly those used in active or prolonged tasks, can trap heat and perspiration, leading to discomfort, reduced dexterity, and decreased user compliance. Proving ventilation openings is a predictable and commonly used solution to allow airflow, facilitate evaporation of sweat, and maintain a drier interior environment. Accordingly, modifying the glove to include a plurality of ventilation holes would have been an obvious design choice yielding predictable results, namely improved comfort and usability.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Brown does not explicitly teach the glove comprising a prestressed portion between the first digit covering and the second digit covering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide such a prestressed portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a prestressed portion between adjacent digit coverings in order to elastically bias the relative positioning of the digits, improve fit, and enhance control during use. Incorporating tensioned or elastically biased regions between adjacent portions of wearable articles, including gloves, is a well-known technique used to promote conformability and ergonomic performance. The modification represents the application of a known technique (elastic prestressing) to known device to achiever predictable results, and would have been a routine design choice within the ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Brown does not disclose wherein the hand covering has a first digit aperture and a second digit aperture, wherein the first digit aperture is configured to at least partially cover a first metacarpophalangeal joint of a user's hand and the second digit aperture is configured to at least partially expose a second metacarpophalangeal joint of the user's hand. However, providing apertures as recited in a glove is not a new concept and Kim is one example of reference that teaches this concept (as shown in Figure 2, Kim teaches coverings (3) that can be attached and detached from part of the glove as needed that are capable of covering and exposing the user’s fingers as recited). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Brown device with removable finger portions in order the glove to also be a multipurpose glove that can be easily broken away from the hand in the case of danger as disclosed in the abstract of the Kim reference.
Regarding claim 14, Brown in view of Kim do not disclose the use of alignment indicator being positioned as discussed in the instant claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Brown in view Kim glove with alignment indicator on the back side of the hand covering in order to assist the user in orienting the hand relative to a target or work direction, thereby improving positioning accuracy and promoting safer and more controlled operation. Visual indicators (e.g., lines arrows, markings) are well known in the art for guiding alignment and directional positioning of tools and body parts. Incorporating such an indicator on a glove represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, namely, to provide visual guidance for proper alignment. Accordingly, the modification would have been an obvious design choice yielding predictable results, including improve consistency, control, and safety.
Regarding claim 15, Brown in view of Kim do not disclose that a shot alignment indicator that is configured to be at least partially aligned with a radial axis and the palmar arch protrusion is also at least partially aligned with the radial axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to orient features of a glove along a natural axis of the hand, such as a radial direction, in order to maintain consistency with the anatomical orientation of the hand and improve ergonomic alignment and user guidance. It is well known that features on wearable articles are commonly aligned with natural anatomical axes to promote consistent positioning intuitive use, and improved control. Aligning both the shot alignment indicator and the palmar arch protrusion along such an axis represents routing design choice involving the predictable orientation of known elements. Accordingly, the claimed alignment would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success, and constitutes no more than the application of known design principes to achiever predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, for example as shown in Figure 11, the left curved section of the palmer arch protrusion (342) on the left side is considered as having a curved edge that is shaped to partially follow the seam (the hidden seam line on the thumb section) and a straight edge (the opposite edge of the protrusion where numeral number 340 is shown in Figure 11 is considered as a straight edge).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnick (US Patent No. 4,962,547) in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 16, Minnick discloses a training glove (see Figures 1-5), comprising: a hand covering having a back side (50) and a palm side (22) and a shot alignment indicator located on the back side of the hand covering (48), wherein the shot alignment indicator (48) is configured to indicate to a user of the training glove an alignment of the back side of the hand covering with respect to a target, wherein a longest extent of the shot alignment indicator is aligned along a radial axis of the hand covering along the back side (see all Figures and claims 1 and 9). Minnick does not disclose the glove having a digit aperture located at least partially between the back side and the palm side or in a thumb portion. However, Kim is one example of reference that teaches providing digit aperture in a glove is not a new concept. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Minnick device with removable finger portions as taught by Kim in order the glove to also be a multipurpose glove that can be easily broken away from the hand in the case of danger as disclosed in the abstract of the Kim reference.
Regarding claim 17, as shown in Figure 1 of the Minnick device, the shot alignment indicator (48) is considered as pointing at the digit aperture.
Regarding claim 18, Minnick discloses a glove device including indicator as discussed above but does not disclose the indicator as being an arrow. An arrow is merely a predictable variation of a line indicator, both serving the same well-known function of indicating direction and alignment. It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the line indicator of Minnick by adding an arrow in order to more explicitly convey directionality, arrow is a commonly used visual cue for indicating direction. Such a modification represents the substitution of one known equivalent visual indicator for another, yielding predictable results. Ant therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Minnick in view of Kim is considered to be capable of meeting the recited feature of the instant claim since the alignment indictor of Minnick discloses the line as being the longest extent of the shot alignment indicator (48) and that will be substantially orthogonal to the longest extent of the digit aperture.
Regarding claim 20, Minnick does not explicitly disclose that the shot alignment indicator is a post- shot alignment feature that indicates proper positioning of the user's hand after the user shoots a basketball at a basketball hoop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the alignment indicator to guide hand positioning both during and after a motion. It is well known that in sprots training, including basketball shooting, proper follow-through and post-action hand positioning are critical for accuracy and consistency. Accordingly, using an alignment indicator to reinforce or indicate proper post-shot hand positioning represents a predictable use of an existing alignment feature for its intended purpose of guiding positioning. The Minnick reference is capable of being used in basketball training if one wishes to do so. The claimed limitation merely recites an intended use or result of using the alignment indicator, which does not structurally distinguish over the prior art device. Thus, the modification would have been obvious as a matter of routine use and optimization, yielding predictable results.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown.
Brown disclose a training glove (see Figures 11-13), comprising: a hand covering having a back side (the section of the glove that is opposite palm section 212) and a palm side (212a); and a palmar arch protrusion located on the palm side, wherein the palmar arch protrusion (e.g., see 340,342 as shown in Figures 12) that has a thickness that is greater than an adjacent portion of the palm side, and the palmar arch protrusion is shaped to at least partially follow a seam that at least partially delineates a primary palm portion and a thumb portion of the hand covering (see Figure 12).
Regarding the recitation that the glove is a “training glove”, this recitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structures onto depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 13-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571)270-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights