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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 27 October 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 3-4, 19-22, 24, and 26
Withdrawn
7, 13, 19-20
Canceled
2, 8-9, 16-18, and 25
Pending
1, 3-7, 10-15, 19-24, and 26
Presented for Examination
1, 3-6, 10-12, 14-15, 21-24, and 26
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Overcome and withdrawn.
101 Rejections
Overcome and withdrawn.
112(b) Rejections
Partially overcome.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to newly added subject matter and have necessitated a new interpretation of the references, as set forth in the rejections below.
103 Rejections
Regarding claims 14-15, Applicant argues modifying Herbruck with a texture as taught by Bourne would render Herbruck inoperable for its intended purpose. This is not persuasive. Herbruck’s intended purpose is at least to provide a rubber or latex glove to protect the hand of user while the hand is gripping a tool, utensil, or other object (Herbruck page 1 col 1 line 10-25). Bourne is also drawn to a rubber or latex glove, and uses texture to enhance grip. One of ordinary skill would recognize that providing Herbruck with texture would not destroy Herbruck’s intended purpose of gripping an object, but enhance its ability to grip an object.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, the glove of claims 1-18 and Species C, figures 9-10 and 20-21 and corresponding to claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-15 in the reply filed on 04 October 2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the at least one gripping zone is remote from a region of the glove which is adapted to receive a person's knuckle” (claim 1; the figures do not show the region of the glove adapted to receive a person’s knuckle such that it can be determined the gripping zone is remote therefrom), “wherein the at least one digit region has a circumference and the at least one gripping zone extends for less than half of the circumference of the at least one digit region” (claim 5; the figures appear to show the stays extend less than half the circumference, but the gripping zone includes both stays and the boundaries of the gripping zone are not shown in the figures such that it can be determined it extends less than half the circumference) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “the at least one gripping zone is remote from a region of the glove which is adapted to receive a person's knuckle” in claim 1. At least para. 0182 supports the gripping zone being between a knuckle and the palm region, but there is no disclosure of the gripping zone being “remote from” a knuckle/ knuckle region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, 14-15, 21-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new matter is “the at least one gripping zone is remote from a region of the glove which is adapted to receive a person's knuckle” in claim 1. At least para. 0182 supports the gripping zone being between a knuckle and the palm region, but there is no disclosure of the gripping zone being “remote from” a knuckle/ knuckle region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “is reduced.” Because “reduced” is a verb, it is not clear if this is a method step or if Applicant is intending to say one width is less than something else. Furthermore, if this is a method step of reducing width as it appears to be, then the claims are indefinite for reciting method steps in an apparatus claim.
Claim Language Interpretation
Regarding the limitation “zone,” Examiner notes that the term "zone" is very broad and merely means "an area or a region distinguished from adjacent parts by a distinctive feature or characteristic" (Defn. No. 1a of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)
Regarding the limitation “section,” Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)
Regarding the limitation “region,” Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 21-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbruck (US 2036413 A).
As to claim 1, Herbruck discloses a glove (glove 10) comprising:
a wrist region (figs 1-2);
a palm region extending outwardly from the wrist region (fig 2);
a plurality of digit regions extending outwardly from the palm region (four finger portions 11 as shown in FIG 2);
at least one gripping zone provided on at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions (see annotated FIG 1 below);
wherein the at least one gripping zone is remote from a region of the glove which is adapted to receive a person's knuckle (see annotated FIG 1 below);
wherein the at least one gripping zone is oriented orthogonally to an imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region (figs 1-2), wherein the imaginary longitudinal axis extends from a tip of the at least one digit region to the palm region (figs 1-2);
wherein the at least one gripping zone comprises a first stay and a second stay (see annotated FIG 1 below); and
wherein the first stay and the second stay both comprise an indentation, wherein a curvature of the indentation is concave relative to the imaginary longitudinal axis, and formed in the at least one digit region (FIG 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the indentations of each of the first stay and the second stay are of a length extending parallel to the imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region and the indentations of each of the first stay and the second stay extends for a circumferential distance along a circumference of the at least one digit region (the length is measured between the top and bottom of 14), where the circumference is orthogonal to the imaginary longitudinal axis (the distance is measured between the left and right of 14); and wherein the length of the indentations of each of the first stay and the second stay is less than the circumferential distance (14 from top to bottom is less than 14 from left to right).
As to claim 4, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the indentations of each of the first stay and the second stay projects into an interior cavity defined by the at least one digit region and is configured to frictionally engage a person's finger or thumb received within the interior cavity (see annotated FIG 1 above, capable of frictionally engaging).
As to claim 21, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein a width of a digit region of the plurality of digit regions at the first stay and the second stay is smaller than the width of the digit region of the plurality of digit regions along a remainder of the digit region (all of the embodiments have digit portions that taper and are wider at the base/ away from the stays than at the tip/ gripping zone).
As to claim 22, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one second gripping zone provided on the at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions (see annotated FIG 1 below); and wherein the at least one second gripping zone is oriented orthogonally to the imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region (FIG 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
677
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 22, wherein the at least one second gripping zone comprises a third stay and a fourth stay that are located opposite to one another and laterally aligned with one another (see annotated FIG 1 above).
As to claim 26, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gripping zone is adapted to frictionally engage a person's finger or thumb and does not alter a glove formation adjacent the person's knuckle (capable of frictionally engaging and as best understood, capable of not altering the glove formation due to being remote from the knuckle region as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10-12, 22-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US 5794266 A).
As to claim 1, Han discloses a glove (“Glove having projections on inner surface,” title) comprising:
a wrist region (Fig 1);
a palm region extending outwardly from the wrist region (fig 1);
a plurality of digit regions extending outwardly from the palm region (FIG 1);
at least one gripping zone provided on at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions (see annotated FIGS 1 and 4 below);
wherein the at least one gripping zone is remote from a region of the glove which is adapted to receive a person's knuckle (see annotated FIG 1 below);
wherein the at least one gripping zone is oriented orthogonally to an imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region (FIGS 1 and 4, Applicant is reminded that “zone” is a broad term and the claim does not limit any boundaries of the “zone,” so the size/ shape of the Han “zone” are broadly interpreted), wherein the imaginary longitudinal axis extends from a tip of the at least one digit region to the palm region (FIG 1);
wherein the at least one gripping zone comprises a first stay and a second stay see annotated FIG 4 below); and
wherein the first stay and the second stay both comprise an indentation (the indentation is the valley between projections 36), wherein a curvature of the indentation is concave relative to the imaginary longitudinal axis (FIG 4), and formed in the at least one digit region (FIGS 1 and 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
748
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
236
569
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the indentations of each of the first stay and the second stay projects into an interior cavity defined by the at least one digit region (36 projects) and is configured to frictionally engage a person's finger or thumb received within the interior cavity (capable of frictionally engaging and intended to frictionally engage, as shown in FIG 4).
As to claim 5, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one digit region has a circumference and the at least one gripping zone extends for less than half of the circumference of the at least one digit region (at least to the degree shown in Applicant’s figures, see annotated FIG 1 above).
As to claim 6, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gripping zone is provided in both of first stay is provide on a front of the at least one digit region and the second stay is provided on a back of the at least one digit region (see annotated FIG 4 above).
As to claim 10, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein each of the first stay and the second stay extend for less than half of a circumference of the at least one digit region (FIGS 1 and 4).
As to claim 11, Han discloses the glove according to claim 10, wherein an end of the first stay and an end of the second stay are circumferentially spaced a distance away from one another (FIGS 1 and 4).
As to claim 12, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the first stay is provided in a front of the at least one digit region and the second stay is provided in a back of the at least one digit region (FIG 4).
As to claim 22, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one second gripping zone provided on the at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions (see annotated FIG 1 below); and wherein the at least one second gripping zone is oriented orthogonally to the imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region (FIG 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
748
637
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 23, Han discloses the glove according to claim 22, wherein the at least one second gripping zone comprises a third stay and a fourth stay that are located opposite to one another and laterally aligned with one another (see annotated FIG 4 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
382
676
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 26, Han discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gripping zone is adapted to frictionally engage a person's finger or thumb and does not alter a glove formation adjacent the person's knuckle (capable of frictionally engaging and as best understood, capable of not altering the glove formation due to being remote from the knuckle region as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbruck (US 2036413 A).
As to claim 5, Herbruck does not disclose the glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one digit region has a circumference and the at least one gripping zone extends for less than half of the circumference of the at least one digit region.
Herbruck figure 2 shows the gripping zone around 14 appears to extend for approximately half of the circumference of the digit region. Herbruck fig 1 shows 14 and 15 do not quite reach one another, which suggests that the gripping zones around 14 extend less than half the circumference of the digit region. Although there is no view that would make it expressly clear if the gripping zones extending half or less than half the circumference of the digit region, either one would be within the scope of the Herbruck reference. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that Herbruck’s gripping zone either extends for less than half the circumference or would be obviously modifiable to extend for less than half the circumference by decreasing the width only a few millimeters. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to decrease the width of the gripping zone in order to be less than half the circumference, for the purpose of providing the desired degree of flexibility and durability.
As to claim 10, Herbruck does not expressly disclose the glove according to claim 1, wherein each of the first stay and the second stay extend for less than half of a circumference of the at least one digit region.
Herbruck figure 2 shows the gripping zone around 14 appears to extend for approximately half of the circumference of the digit region. Herbruck fig 1 shows 14 and 15 do not quite reach one another, which suggests that the gripping zones around 14 and/ or 15 extend less than half the circumference of the digit region. Although there is no view that would make it expressly clear if the gripping zones extending half or less than half the circumference of the digit region, either one would be within the scope of the Herbruck reference. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that Herbruck’s gripping zone either extends for less than half the circumference or would be obviously modifiable to extend for less than half the circumference by decreasing the width only a few millimeters. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to decrease the width of the gripping zone in order to be less than half the circumference, for the purpose of providing the desired degree of flexibility and durability.
As to claim 11, Herbruck discloses the glove according to claim 10, wherein an end of the first stay and an end the second stay are circumferentially spaced a distance away from one another (Herbruck figs 1-2, where lateral ends of the stays are spaced away from one another, and upper and lower ends of the stays are also spaced away from one another).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbruck (US 2036413 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bourne (US 6081928 A).
As to claim 14, Herbruck does not disclose the glove according to claim 1, further comprising texturing of an exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone.
Bourne teaches it is known for gloves to comprise texturing of an exterior surface (col 1 line 5-15 teaches “micro-texture”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone of Herbruck with texturing to provide the user with “a sensitive feel and hand-like touch while wearing the glove” (Bourne col 1 line 5-10).
As to claim 15 Herbruck as modified discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the texturing is applied through micro-etching (The recitation “applied through micro-etching” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 5794266 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bourne (US 6081928 A).
As to claim 14, Han does not disclose the glove according to claim 1, further comprising texturing of an exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone.
Bourne teaches it is known for gloves to comprise texturing of an exterior surface (col 1 line 5-15 teaches “micro-texture”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone of Han with texturing to provide the user with “a sensitive feel and hand-like touch while wearing the glove” (Bourne col 1 line 5-10).
As to claim 15 Han as modified discloses the glove according to claim 1, wherein the texturing is applied through micro-etching (The recitation “applied through micro-etching” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are lim-ited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 5794266 A) as applied to claim 1 or 23 above, and further in view of Herbruck (US 2036413 A).
As to claim 21, Han does not disclose the glove according to claim 1, wherein a width of a digit region of the plurality of digit regions at the first stay and the second stay is smaller than the width of the digit region of the plurality of digit regions along a reduced relative to remainder of the digit region.
Herbruck teaches a similar glove including the width of the digit region tapers from a wider portion at the palm to a narrower portion at the fingertip. This is a known structure for digit regions to mimic the size and shape of a wearer’s digits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Herbruck digit region to have a width that tapers from palm to tip for improved comfort and dexterity. This modification would obviously result in “a width of a digit region of the plurality of digit regions at the first stay and the second stay is smaller than the width of the digit region of the plurality of digit regions along a reduced relative to remainder of the digit region,” because the first and second stays are closer to the narrower tip than the remainder of the digit region closer to the palm.
As to claim 24, Han discloses the glove according to claim 23, wherein the third stay and the fourth stay both comprise a concave indentation (FIG 4), wherein a curvature of the indentation is concave relative to the imaginary longitudinal axis (FIGS 1 and 4), and formed in the at least one digit region (FIGS 1 and 4), but does not disclose a width of a digit region of the plurality of digit regions at the third stay and the fourth stay is reduced smaller than a width of the digit region of the plurality of digit regions along a remainder of the digit region.
Herbruck teaches a similar glove including the width of the digit region tapers from a wider portion at the palm to a narrower portion at the fingertip. This is a known structure for digit regions to mimic the size and shape of a wearer’s digits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Herbruck digit region to have a width that tapers from palm to tip for improved comfort and dexterity. This modification would obviously result in “a width of a digit region of the plurality of digit regions at the first stay and the second stay is smaller than the width of the digit region of the plurality of digit regions along a reduced relative to remainder of the digit region,” because the first and second stays are closer to the narrower tip than the remainder of the digit region closer to the palm.
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732