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 Non-Final of 7/9/2025 is acknowledged on 10/9/2025.
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 § 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, 4, 6, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desjardin et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0144880) in view of J. D. Cole (US Patent No. 2,456,678).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Desjardin discloses a training glove (see Figures 1-4), comprising: a hand covering (10) having a first digit aperture (the opening in the thumb section of the glove) and a second digit aperture (45) 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 1-4). Desjardin discloses the invention as discussed above but does not teach the hand covering having a back side (30) and a palm side (20), and a palmar arch protrusion covers a portion of the palm side. Cole is a training golf glove that teaches the use of a protrusion that covers a portion of the palm side as recited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to provide the Desjardin device with an arch protrusion as taught by the Cole reference in order to provide a golf glove that improves the grip on the shaft of a golf club as discussed in column 1 lines 1-4.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the second digit aperture is configured to at least partially expose a third metacarpophalangeal joint of the user's hand (for example as shown in Figure 4, index finger 15k and middle finger 15 are shown as having exposed feature as recited).
Regarding claim 4, Cole discloses the palmar arch protrusion having a thickness that is greater than an adjacent portion of the palm side (see Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, see rejections of claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koven (US Patent Application Publication No. (US 2017/0020212) and Hougen (WO 2010/059998).
The references as applied to claims 1 and 10 above do not disclose the use of alignment indicator being positioned as discussed in the instant claims. The use of alignment indicator on a glove element in sports is not a new concept and Koven is one example of reference that teaches this feature (see indicia 136,138 as shown in Figure 4). Koven does not explicitly state if the device could be used in basketball. Hougen is one example of reference that teaches the use of indicia on a basketball glove is not a new concept (see indicia 220 as shown in Figure 7A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the references as applied to claim 1 with alignment indicator/indicia as taught by the Kovan reference in order to promote proper alignment as disclosed in paragraph 21. It is noted that the Koven reference discloses that “it is not intended to be exhaustive or limiting to the forms described. Numerous modifications are possible in light of the above teachings. Some of those modifications have been discussed, and others will be understood by those skilled in the art. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best illustrate principles of various embodiments as are suited to particular uses contemplated. The scope is, of course, not limited to the examples set forth herein, but can be employed in any number of applications and equivalent devices by those of ordinary skill in the art. Rather it is hereby intended the scope of the invention to be defined by the claims appended hereto” (see paragraph 50). Obviously, the alignment indicator will be aligned as disclosed in the claims. Hougen as discussed above teaches a basketball glove with indica and it will also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide indica on the Desjardin device to assist a player with shooting and ball control as disclosed in the first paragraph of Hougen on page 4 of the specification.
Claims 5 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Miller (US Patent No. 1,244,065) and Park (Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0208834).
Regarding claim 5, the reference as applied to claim 4 do not disclose a shot alignment indicator as recited in the claim 4. However, the use of alignment indicator in glove Is not a new concept and Miller is one example of reference that teaches this concept (see the arrow indicia as shown in Figure 3 of Miller. Park also teaches that the use of indica on a golf glove is not a new concept (see paragraph 29 and Figures 2-3a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Desjardin device with an indica in order to effectively indicate to the user his/her proposed course of action as discussed in column 1 lines 10-20 of the Miller reference. It will also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to provide the glove of the Desjardin device with alignment indicator to provide a directional guidance to the use as discussed in paragraph 29 of the Park device.
Regarding claim 16, see rejections of claims 1 and 5 above.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, see rejections of claims 1, 5 and 16 above. The alignment indicator as disclosed in Koven does not explicitly disclose the indicator pointing at the digital aperture as recited and the indicator being orthogonal to the digit aperture. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the alignment indicator at any working location including pointing at the digit aperture as recited, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 18, the alignment indicator of Koben discloses an arrow (see 136 as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 16 above. The combination of the references is capable of meeting the intend use recitation of the claim.
The examiner notes that it has been held that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Further still, it has also been held that "The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 -32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959).
Regarding claim 21, the protrusion of Cole as shown in Figures 3-5 have a curved edge at the top and bottom end areas of (10) and section of the protrusion closest to the thumb is considered as partially flowing the seam and the opposite portion of the protrusion as shown in Figure 3 is considered as having a straight edge.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the references as applied to claim 1 above in view of Korey (US Patent No. 3,387,306).
Regarding claim 7, Desjardin does not disclose first and second digit coverings extending fully around the digits as recited. However, covering first and second digits with full covering is not a new concept and Korey is one example of reference that teaches this concept (see the full covering of 18 and 19 as shown in Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first digit covering and the second digit covering include a plurality of ventilation holes (Desjardin discloses the use of plurality of air holes in the glove as discussed in paragraph 30 and claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, the Desjardin references does not explicitly disclose the use of a prestressed portion between the first digit covering and the second digit covering. However, this is a known concept and it will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide prestressed portions between finger digits in glove since it enhances flexibility and fit, allowing the glove to move naturally with the hand while maintaining a snug grip on the club. This improves comfort, control, and swing consistency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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
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 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