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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art neither disclosing nor teaching the incorporated amendment are moot, as the limitation is newly recited, and Examiner has updated the grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant also argues against the claim objections because “there is no statutory or other grounds for requiring a comma after the word wherein” (page 5 Arguments). Examiner respectfully points out that the objection is made for grammatical purposes, as there are commas missing within the claims. While the issue does not rise to the level of indefiniteness, the claims are objected to because the limitations require commas.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a second mating unit…for attaching said sandpaper to said glove in claims 1 and 5. Examiner is relying upon page 5, lines 15-16 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the body of claims 1, 3, and 5, several limitations lack appropriate punctuation. For example, in claim 1, a comma is required before reciting “wherein” in the limitations reading “a glove having a plurality of fingers and a thumb wherein said glove is configured to be worn on a user's hand” and “said first mating unit for attaching said sandpaper to said glove wherein said sandpaper is configured to…”. Claim 3 similarly lacks a comma in the limitation reciting “…surface being treated with an abrasive material wherein said first surface…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend (US 8062101) in view of Boileau (GB 2347069).
Regarding claim 1, Friend discloses a glove and sandpaper assembly for facilitating sandpaper to be attached to a glove for performing sanding work with the glove (see Abstract), said assembly comprising:
a glove having a plurality of fingers and a thumb wherein said glove is configured to be worn on a user's hand (see glove 12 including a thumb portion 20 and a plurality of finger portions 22; see also Col. 3, line 63-Col. 4, line 31);
a first mating unit being attached to said glove (see surface 28, loops 40, Col. 6 lines 13-20), said first mating unit extending along each of said plurality of fingers and said thumb (see Figures 10 and 11; see also Col. 4, lines 50-67);
a sheet of sandpaper (16) having a plurality of cut outs being strategically arranged to define a plurality of peninsulas each extending away from a central portion of said sheet of sandpaper (see abrasive sheet 16; see also Col. 5, lines 13-24); and
a second mating unit being bonded to said sheet of sandpaper, said second mating unit being releasably matable to said first mating unit for attaching said sandpaper to said glove (wherein barrier outer surface 28 is covered by loops 40 and mating surface 42 on the abrasive sheet 16 includes a plurality of hooks 44, see Col. 6, lines 13-20) wherein said sandpaper is configured to facilitate a user to perform sanding work while wearing said glove (Col. 2, lines 54-63);
wherein said glove has a palm, each of said plurality of fingers and said thumb having a tip (see palm 18, thumb 20, fingers 22; see Col. 2, lines 42-60 and Col. 4, lines 27-31), said glove having a cuff (see wrist portion 24, Col. 4 lines 37-39); and
wherein said first mating unit is positioned on said palm, said first mating unit extending along a bottom side of each of said plurality of fingers of said glove, said first mating unit extending along a bottom side of said thumb (see Figures 10 and 11; see also Col. 6, lines 5-32), said first mating unit having a lower edge being spaced from said cuff (wherein as can be seen in Figure 4, surface 28 does not extend to a length sufficient to reach the wrist, i.e. there is a space therebetween; see also Reference Drawing 1, which is an annotated Figure 1 of Friend), wherein said lower edge is configured to extend across a base of a wearer’s palm (see edge and space labeled in Reference Drawing 1).
However, Friend does not explicitly teach the wrist is being comprised of an elastomeric material and said first mating unit wrapping around said tip of each of said plurality of fingers and said tip of said thumb.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Boileau teaches that wrist (14) is comprised of an elastomeric material (page 4, lines 18-19) and that the abrasive material/bonding material is wrapping around said tip of each of said plurality of fingers and said tip of said thumb (page 3, lines 11-21; page 5, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Friend to include an elasticated wrist portion and extending the abrasive/hook and loop fastener on the glove portion to surround the tips of fingers and the thumb. One would be motivated to modify the wrist portion so as to provide a tight fit which can stretch, noted as an alternative to the Velcro wrist portion described by Friend (see page 4, lines 18-19 of Boileau). One would be motivated to modify the placement of the mating material to wrap around the tips of fingers/thumb in order to provide additional surface area for sanding, recognized as a benefit by Boileau, as fingers have the ability to reach in smaller areas; see page 1, lines 6-10.
PNG
media_image1.png
864
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 3, Friend in view of Boileau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Friend further teaches said sheet of sandpaper has a first surface being treated with an abrasive material wherein said first surface is configured to sand a work surface for smoothing the work surface (Friend: see sheet 16 having sanding surface 30, as well as Col. 5, lines 13-24); and
said plurality of peninsulas includes a plurality of finger peninsulas each being directed forwardly from said central portion, said plurality of peninsulas including a thumb peninsula being positioned on a first lateral side of said central portion and being directed forwardly from said central portion (see at least the palm 18, thumb 20, finger 22, as well as Figures 4, 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 4, Friend in view of Boileau teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Friend further teaches said second mating unit (42, 44) completely covers a second surface of said sheet of sandpaper (Friend: see Figures 10 and 11, as well as Col. 6, lines 16-20);
each of said plurality of finger peninsulas extends along a respective one of said plurality of fingers of said glove (Friend: Col. 5, lines 13-19);
each of said plurality of finger peninsulas wraps around said tip of said respective finger (Boileau: page 3, lines 11-21; page 5, lines 14-18);
said thumb peninsula extends along said thumb of said glove (Friend: see Figures 10 and 11); and
and said thumb peninsula wraps around said tip of said thumb (Boileau: page 3, lines 11-21; page 5, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 5, Friend discloses a glove and sandpaper assembly for facilitating sandpaper to be attached to a glove for performing sanding work with the glove (see Abstract), said assembly comprising:
a glove having a plurality of fingers and a thumb wherein said glove is configured to be worn on a user's hand (see glove 12 including a thumb portion 20 and a plurality of finger portions 22; see also Col. 3, line 63-Col. 4, line 31), said glove having a palm, each of said plurality of fingers and said thumb having a tip (see palm 18, thumb 20, fingers 22; see Col. 2, lines 42-60 and Col. 4, lines 27-31), said glove having a cuff (see wrist portion 24, Col. 4 lines 37-39);
a first mating unit being attached to said glove (see surface 28, loops 40, Col. 6 lines 13-20), said first mating unit extending along each of said plurality of fingers and said thumb (see Figures 10 and 11; see also Col. 4, lines 50-67), said first mating unit being positioned on said palm, said first mating unit extending along a bottom side of each of said plurality of fingers of said glove, said first mating unit extending along a bottom side of said thumb (see Figures 10 and 11; see also Col. 6, lines 5-32), said first mating unit having a lower edge being spaced from said cuff (wherein as can be seen in Figure 4, surface 28 does not extend to a length sufficient to reach the wrist, i.e. there is a space therebetween) wherein said lower edge is configured to extend across a base of a wearer’s palm (please see Reference Drawing 1 above);
a sheet of sandpaper (16) having a plurality of cut outs being strategically arranged to define a plurality of peninsulas each extending away from a central portion of said sheet of sandpaper (see abrasive sheet 16; see also Col. 5, lines 13-24), said sheet of sandpaper having a first surface (30) being treated with an abrasive material wherein said first surface is configured to sand a work surface for smoothing the work surface (see sheet 16 having sanding surface 30, as well as Col. 5, lines 13-24), said plurality of peninsulas including a plurality of finger peninsulas each being directed forwardly from said central portion, said plurality of peninsulas including a thumb peninsula being positioned on a first lateral side of said central portion and being directed forwardly from said central portion (see at least the palm 18, thumb 20, finger 22, as well as Figures 4, 10 and 11); and
a second mating unit being bonded to said sheet of sandpaper, said second mating unit being releasably matable to said first mating unit for attaching said sandpaper to said glove (wherein barrier outer surface 28 is covered by loops 40 and mating surface 42 on the abrasive sheet 16 includes a plurality of hooks 44, see Col. 6, lines 13-20) wherein said sandpaper is configured to facilitate a user to perform sanding work while wearing said glove (Col. 2, lines 54-63),
said second mating unit (42, 44) completely covering a second surface of said sheet of sandpaper (see Figures 10 and 11, as well as Col. 6, lines 16-20), each of said plurality of finger peninsulas extending along a respective one of said plurality of fingers of said glove (Col. 5, lines 13-19), said thumb peninsula extending along said thumb of said glove (see Figures 10 and 11).
However, Friend does not explicitly teach the wrist is being comprised of an elastomeric material and said first mating unit wrapping around said tip of each of said plurality of fingers and said tip of said thumb, each of said plurality of finger peninsulas wrapping around said tip of said respective finger, said thumb peninsula wrapping around said tip of said thumb.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Boileau teaches that wrist (14) is comprised of an elastomeric material (page 4, lines 18-19) and that the abrasive material/bonding material is wrapping around said tip of each of said plurality of fingers and said tip of said thumb (page 3, lines 11-21; page 5, lines 14-18); each of said plurality of finger peninsulas wrapping around said tip of said respective finger, said thumb peninsula wrapping around said tip of said thumb (page 3, lines 11-21; page 5, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Friend to include an elasticated wrist portion and extending the abrasive/hook and loop fastener on the glove portion to surround the tips of fingers and the thumb. One would be motivated to modify the wrist portion so as to provide a tight fit which can stretch, noted as an alternative to the Velcro wrist portion described by Friend (see page 4, lines 18-19 of Boileau). One would be motivated to modify the placement of the mating material to wrap around the tips of fingers/thumb in order to provide additional surface area for sanding, recognized as a benefit by Boileau, as fingers have the ability to reach in smaller areas; see page 1, lines 6-10.
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723