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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 31, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on September 22, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 2, 19, 21 and 22 have been amended; claims 3, 18 and 30-38 are canceled; claims 4, 29 and 39-45 are withdrawn from further consideration; and claims 46-49 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4-17, 19-29 and 39-49 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1, 2, 5-17, 19-28 and 46-49.
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: in new claim 46, Applicant recites “wherein the concave recess aligns coaxially with the first recess”, wherein the term “coaxially” is not recited anywhere in the written Specification; in new claim 47, Applicant recites “wherein the concave recess aligns radially with the first recess”, wherein the term “radially” is not recited anywhere in the written Specification; in new claim 48, Applicant recites “wherein the concave recess is concentric with the first recess”, wherein the term “concentric” is not recited anywhere in the written Specification; and in new claim 49, Applicant recites “wherein the concave recess aligns coaxially and radially with the first recess”, wherein the terms “coaxially” and “radially” are not recited anywhere in the written Specification.
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.
Claims 1, 11-13, 15-17, 19-24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champagne et al. (hereinafter “Champagne”) (US 2014/0208481) in view of Anstey (US 2013/0291282) and Jaeger (US 2004/0025226).
Regarding independent claim 1, Champagne discloses an apparel article (glove #600 in Fig. 6), comprising: a protective shell (see annotated Fig. 6C below) defining a hand portion from which four finger tubes and a thumb tube extend with an opening for receiving a hand of a person to wear as a glove (see Fig. 6 in Champagne, which shows an arbitrary hand portion, four finger tubes and a thumb tube that all extend from the hand portion; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); the cuff end has an opening for receiving the hand of the wearer); and at least one grip field having a plurality of spaced-apart nodules (Fig. 6 shows that the glove has instances of raised patterns #602 throughout a field/area, which are spaced apart from one another), each nodule defining a first recess open to an interior of the protective shell (see annotated Fig. 6C below) and extending from an exterior surface of the protective shell to a distal end (see annotated Fig. 6C below), but is silent to there being a concave recess extending inwardly into the first recess. Champagne appears to show that the protective shell is of uniform thickness (see Figs. 6A-6E, which show a similar thickness profile as Applicant’s elected Fig. 5), but does not explicitly disclose that the thickness is uniform, and it cannot be determined from Champagne’s disclosure alone whether the thickness is uniform.
PNG
media_image1.png
363
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anstey teaches a glove that includes corrugated sections that are for improving the bendability of the glove sections for improved ergonomics, similar to Champagne, wherein the glove maintains a constant and uniform thickness in the corrugated area and with the rest of the glove (¶ 0039 of Anstey).
Jaeger teaches a glove with projections that can be various shapes, such as cones, cylinders, partial spheres, rectangles, polyhedrals, etc. and which can be flat, pointed or rounded on the top, wherein the rounded top can have a concave or convex surface (¶ 0029 of Jaeger; i.e. if the rounded top has a concave surface, then there is a concave recess that extends into the rounded top).
Champagne, Anstey and Jaeger all teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves with surface protrusions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the glove material in Champagne to have a uniform thickness, as taught by Anstey, for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) simplifying the manufacturing process and reducing the bulk of the glove by minimizing the material amount needed to form the glove (i.e. by removing unnecessary areas of undesired increased thickness), and it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the top of the protrusions in Champagne to have a concave shape, as taught by Jaeger, wherein the grip could be enhanced for the glove’s grasping surface when using a work instrument, as shown in Fig. 5 of Champagne to be an intended use for the glove. As a result of the modification, the thickness of the protective shell would be uniform (via teachings of Anstey) and the nodules would have a concave recess extending inwardly into the first recess (via teachings of Jaeger).
Regarding claim 11, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that each nodule of the plurality of nodules extends outwardly with a side wall up to 90 degrees relative to the exterior surface (Fig. 6A shows one embodiment of the nodules’ shape which reaches a 90° angle; Figs. 6B and 6C show other angles that are less than 90° (i.e. “up to 90 degrees”) relative to the exterior surface).
Regarding claim 12, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that each nodule of the plurality of nodules angles to the distal end, but is silent to specifying that the angle is in a range from 15 degrees to 75 degrees relative to the exterior surface (see Fig. 6B and 6C embodiments). However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the angle being in a range from 15-75° relative to the exterior surface (Applicant’s disclosure states that the angle could operably be up to 90° (see ¶ 0017, 0068 of Applicant’s Specification, and claims 11 and 33 as currently presented)), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the angle of the nodules of at least Fig. 6B’s embodiment to have been in a range of 15-75°, since Fig. 6B shows what is a triangular raised pattern (and appears to be at least close to an equilateral triangle), wherein the angle would likely be close to 60°, which is within the claimed range of 15-75, in order for the embodiment’s angle to at least match what is illustrated, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 13, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that each nodule of the plurality of nodules angles to the distal end, but is silent to specifying that the angle is 45 degrees relative to the exterior surface. However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the angle being 45° relative to the exterior surface (Applicant’s disclosure states that the angle could operably be up to 90° (see ¶ 0017, 0068 of Applicant’s Specification, and claims 11 and 33 as currently presented)), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the angle to have been set to 45°, such as for the Fig. 6C flat pyramid-shaped embodiment in order to adjust the flexibility of the glove (or for either of the partial-spherical embodiment of Fig. 6D or dome-like embodiment of Fig. 6E, both of which would have at least some tangent angle along the curvature which would yield a 45° angle relative to the exterior surface), and further since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 15, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that each nodule of the plurality of nodules has a base at the exterior surface with a width, but is silent to specifying that the width is 2.3 mm. However, as noted above, Jaeger teaches an analogous invention involving a glove with protrusions/nodules, and Jaeger teaches that its nodules can have a width at their bases, wherein the width is represented by dimension A/B/C/D (¶ 0021 of Jaeger), and the dimensions of A, B, C, D, E, F and G in Jaeger can range from 0.5 to 10 mm, wherein 2.3 mm falls within this disclosed range. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the width at the exterior surface of the nodules being 2.3 mm (Applicant’s Specification merely mentions this value twice (¶ 0021 and 0070 of Jaeger), without explaining why this particular value is beneficial over some other value, and further discloses that the width can be within a range of 0.5-5.0 mm (¶ 0020 and 0070 of Jaeger)), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have set the width of the raised portions at the base at the exterior surface to be 2.3 mm, since Champagne discloses that the centers of the raised portions are preferably a maximum of ¼ inch (equal to 6.35 mm), 1/8 inch (equal to 3.175 mm) or 1/16 inch (equal to 1.59 mm) spaced apart from one another (¶ 00180 of Champagne), wherein the width of the base appears to be about half of the distance between the centers of two adjacent raised portions, as illustrated in Fig. 6A-6E, and twice the distance of 2.3 mm equals 4.6 mm, which is within the general realm of the disclosed preferred spaced-apart distances in Champagne identified above, and further since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 16, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that adjacent ones of the plurality of nodules are spaced apart in a range from 0.1 mm to 3 mm (Champagne discloses that the centers of the raised portions are preferably no greater than ¼ inch (equal to 6.35 mm), 1/8 inch (equal to 3.175 mm) or 1/16 inch (equal to 1.59 mm) spaced apart from one another (¶ 00180 of Champagne); if “spaced apart”, as claimed is based on the distance between the bottom-most points of the base at the exterior surface, then a value of about half of the distance between the centers of the adjacent raised portions would appear to yield the value of the distance between the bases of the adjacent raised portions; half of 6.35 mm is 3.175 mm, half of 3.175 mm is 1.59 mm, and half of 1.59 mm is 0.79 mm, the latter two examples being within the claimed range of 0.1-3.0 mm).
Regarding claim 17, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that adjacent ones of the plurality of nodules are spaced 1 mm apart (Champagne discloses that the centers of the raised portions are preferably no greater than ¼ inch (equal to 6.35 mm), 1/8 inch (equal to 3.175 mm) or 1/16 inch (equal to 1.59 mm) spaced apart from one another (¶ 00180 of Champagne); if “spaced apart”, as claimed is based on the distance between the bottom-most points of the base at the exterior surface, then a value of about half of the distance between the centers of the adjacent raised portions would appear to yield the value of the distance between the bases of the adjacent raised portions; half of 6.35 mm is 3.175 mm, half of 3.175 mm is 1.59 mm, and half of 1.59 mm is 0.79 mm; since the disclosed ranges (i.e. “no greater than” implies that a the given value is a maximum value of a range, in Champagne) overlap with the value of 1 mm (i.e. the maximum values disclosed being equal to a between-base distance of 1.59 mm and 0.79 mm as noted above), then the modified apparel article of Champagne at least renders obvious the claimed value of 1.0 mm).
Regarding claim 19, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that the hand portion defines at least one pad portion (see annotated Fig. 6 below); and the at least one grip field occupies the at least one pad portion (see annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
658
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claims 1 and 19 above) is disclosed such that the at least one grip field occupies a palm side tip portion of at least one of any of the four finger tubes and the thumb tube (see annotated Fig. 6 above; ¶ 0089-0090 of Champagne disclose that the pattern can be present and cover any portion of the dorsum or palm (¶ 0089 of Champagne), including any suitable location on the gloves such as on part of or the entire palm side of the glove (¶ 0090 of Champagne)).
Regarding claim 21, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that each of the four finger tubes and the thumb tube has a respective palm-side tip portion and each respective palm-side tip portion has a respective one of the at least one grip field of the plurality of nodules (see annotated Fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 22, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above) is disclosed such that the at least one pad portion is on a palm-side proximate the thumb tube (see annotated Fig. 6 above; Examiner notes that the term "proximate" is very broad and merely means "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 23, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claims 1, 21 and 22 above) is disclosed such that it further comprises a second one of the at least one pad portion on a palm side proximate a finger tube of the four finger tubes most distally remote from the thumb tube; and further comprising a second one of the at least one grip field that occupies the second one of the at least one pad portion (see annotated Fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 24, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that the plurality of spaced-apart nodules are disposed in a plurality of rows (see Fig. 6 of Champagne, which shows rows of the raised patterns #602).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) teaches that the raised patterns can be various shapes, but is silent to specifying that the shapes include a conical shape (claim 26) or a circular cross-section shape (claim 28). However, Jaeger, in a related invention, discloses various shapes for its raised protrusions, including a conical shape (“cones”, “cylinders”; ¶ 0029 of Jaeger), and absent a showing of criticality with respect to each nodule being conical or circular in cross-section (Applicant discloses and claims other potential shapes, including pyramidal; see ¶ 0033 of Applicant’s Specification and current claim 27), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the cone or cylindrical shapes taught by Jaeger as the shape of choice for the raised patterns of Champagne in order to provide alternative known shapes that can permit the flexibility desired for the glove, and further since it has been held that modifying the shape of an element would be obvious absent evidence that the particular shape of the element of the claimed invention was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 27, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed such that each nodule of the plurality of nodules is pyramidal (Fig. 6C embodiment is a flat-top pyramid; ¶ 0088, 0090, 0099, 0185 of Champagne).
Claims 2, 5-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bourne (USPN 6,081,928).
Regarding claim 2, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches that each nodule of the plurality of nodules defines a geometric shaped projection with a base at the exterior surface, but is silent to specifying that the projections’ widths are in a range from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, their heights in a range from 0.2 mm to 2 mm from the exterior surface, and the concave recess’ depth being in a range from 0.05 mm to 1 mm, and adjacent ones of the plurality of nodules being spaced apart in a range of in a range from 0.1 mm to 3 mm.
Jaeger teaches that its projection’s base at the exterior surface has a width in a range 0.5 mm to 5 mm (dimensions A, B, C, D, E, F and G (A/B/C/D are sides of pyramid; E is height; F and G are spacing; see Figs. 4-5) range from 0.5 to 10 mm (¶ 0021 of Jaeger); within this range of all of these dimensions lies at least one iteration where the width of a pyramid base is between 0.5-5 mm; Jaeger gives a specific example of a pyramid #29 protrusion with a base width of approximately 3 mm (¶ 0020 of Jaeger), which is within the claimed range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm), renders obvious that the projection’s height can be in a range from 0.2 mm to 2 mm from the exterior surface (Jaeger teaches that the height of the pyramids (i.e. nodules/geometric shaped projections) can be within a range of 0.5 to 10 mm (¶ 0021 of Jaeger), which overlaps the claimed range that requires that each nodule extends to a height in a range from 0.2 mm to 2 mm from the exterior surface; in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).), and adjacent ones of the plurality of nodules are spaced apart in a range of 0.1 mm to 3 mm (Jaeger gives a specific example of pyramid #29 protrusions with a separation between pyramids of approximately 3 mm (¶ 0020 of Jaeger), which is within the claimed range of 0.1-3 mm), but is silent to specifying the depth of the concavity of the concave rounded top of the protrusion (¶ 0029 of Jaeger), and it cannot be determined whether the concave recess has a depth of 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Bourne teaches a gripping glove that includes negative textured grip on the surface that form concave indentations that have a preferable depth of about 0.004 inch to about 0.02 inch (Col. 3, Lines 49-50 of Bourne). This range is equivalent, in millimeters, to a range of about 0.102 mm to about 0.508 mm, wherein this range lies within the claimed range of 0.05 mm to 1 mm.
Modified Champagne, Jaeger and Bourne teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves with gripping nodules that have concavity. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a depth of about 0.102 mm to about 0.508 mm for the depth of choice for the concavity of the rounded-top concavity in modified Champagne (as noted above in the rejection of independent claim 1, the concavity taught by Jaeger was incorporated into the distal ends of the raised patterns #602 of Champagne), as taught by Bourne, in order to permit better suction grip between the glove and a grasped surface (see Fig. 5 of Champagne, wherein the glove is grasping a medical instrument), and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the disclosed dimensions’ ranges of Jaeger for the raised patterns’ base widths, the heights and the spacing between adjacent raised patterns/nodules (i.e. approximately 3 mm width (¶ 0020 of Jaeger), which is within the claimed range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm for the width; Jaeger teaches that the height of the pyramids (i.e. nodules/geometric shaped projections) can be within a range of 0.5 to 10 mm (¶ 0021 of Jaeger), which overlaps the claimed range that requires that each nodule extends to a height in a range from 0.2 mm to 2 mm from the exterior surface; in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I); and Jaeger gives a specific example of pyramid #29 protrusions with a separation between pyramids of approximately 3 mm (¶ 0020 of Jaeger), which is within the claimed range of 0.1-3 mm) in order to provide a resulting size for the raised patterns that would be appropriate proportions consistent with the illustrated and described examples in Champagne, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey, Jaeger and Bourne, as such modification is explained with respect to claim 2 above) renders obvious that each nodule extends to a height in a range from 0.2 mm to 2 mm from the exterior surface (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, as explained above, which addresses this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey, Jaeger and Bourne, as such modification is explained with respect to claim 2 above) renders obvious that each nodule extends to a height of 0.8 mm (Jaeger, which is relied upon for the addressing the height dimensions incorporated into the Champagne raised patterns’ heights, discloses that dimension E is height (¶ 0021 of Jaeger), wherein dimensions A, B, C, D, E, F and G range from 0.5 to 10 mm, wherein 0.8 mm falls within this range).
Regarding claim 7, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, but Jaeger is silent to specifying that the concave recess’ diameter (which was incorporated into Champagne in the rejection of claim 1 as explained above) is in a range from 0.2 mm to 1.5 mm.
Bourne teaches that its concave indentations (analogous to the concave recess from Jaeger added to the distal end of the raised patterns of Champagne) can have a diameter of between about 0.008 inch to about 0.5 inch (Col. 3, Line 33-35 of Bourne), which is equivalent to a range of about 0.2 to about 12.7 mm.
Modified Champagne, Jaeger and Bourne teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves with gripping nodules that have concavity. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have set the added concave recess’ diameter in modified Champagne to have been about 0.2 to about 12.7 mm, which overlaps with the claimed diameter range of 0.2 mm to 1.5 mm, in order to set the suction grip capability of the concave recess when grasping objects while wearing the glove, and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 8, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey, Jaeger and Bourne, as such modification is explained with respect to claim 7 above) renders obvious that the concave recess has a diameter of 1 mm (after the modification described in claim 7 above, the resulting concave recess diameter is in a range of about 0.2 mm to about 12.7 mm, which includes the claimed value of 1.0 mm).
Regarding claim 9, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey, Jaeger and Bourne, as such modification is explained with respect to claim 2 above) renders obvious that the concave recess has a depth in a range from 0.05 mm to 1 mm (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, as explained above, which addresses this limitation).
Regarding claim 10, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey, Jaeger and Bourne, as such modification is explained with respect to claim 2 above) renders obvious that the concave recess has a depth of 0.1 mm (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, as explained above, which addresses this limitation; Bourne discloses a preferable depth of about 0.004 inch to about 0.02 inch (Col. 3, Lines 49-50 of Bourne), which is equivalent, in millimeters, to a range of about 0.102 mm to about 0.508 mm, wherein the minimum value of “about 0.102 mm” would be considered by one having ordinary skill in the art to meet the claimed limitation of 0.1 mm depth, since the term “about” indicates there would be some tolerance with respect to the stated value).
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey, Jaeger and Bourne, as such modification is explained with respect to claim 2 above) renders obvious that each nodule of the plurality of nodules has a base at the exterior surface with a width in a range from 0.5 mm to 5 mm (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, as explained above, which addresses this limitation).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger as applied to claims 1 and 24 above, and further in view of Francisco Costa et al. (hereinafter “Francisco”) (US 2015/0143609).
Regarding claim 25, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claims 1 and 24 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 24, as set forth above, but is silent to the plurality of spaced-apart nodules in a first row of the plurality of rows being offset from the plurality of spaced-apart nodules in an adjacent row of the plurality of rows.
Francisco teaches a glove with raised patterns arranged in rows, wherein the rows can be arranged in a staggered pattern with one another (¶ 0032-0033 of Francisco; Fig. 4E illustrates a staggered arrangement between adjacent rows).
Modified Champagne and Francisco teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves with raised patterns in rows. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied the staggered arrangement taught by Francisco to the rows of raised patterns in Champagne in order to improve the coverage area of the raised patterns #602 and thus rendering improved flexibility and grip capability when grasping items with the glove, and further since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). As a result of the modification, the adjacent rows would be offset from one another, via the incorporated staggered arrangement.
Claims 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albert (US 2004/0081801).
Regarding claims 46-49, the modified apparel article of Champagne (i.e. Champagne in view of Anstey and Jaeger, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Jaeger, which is relied upon for the concave surface being applied to the top of the nodules (i.e. as a respective concave recess for each nodule) does not specify the alignment of the concave surface in relation to its respective protrusions (i.e. analogous to nodules), and is therefore silent to the concave recess aligning coaxially with the first recess (claim 46), radially with the first recess (claim 47), being concentric with the first recess (claim 48), or aligning coaxially and radially with the first recess (claim 49).
Albert teaches a gripping glove with protrusions that have concave recesses as suction cups (see Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Albert), wherein the concave recesses are respectively concentrically, radially and coaxially aligned with the general shape of their respective protrusions, as is most typical with suction cups.
Modified Champagne and Albert teach analogous inventions in the field of gripping gloves. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the concave recess aligning coaxially with the first recess (claim 46), radially with the first recess (claim 47), being concentric with the first recess (claim 48), or aligning coaxially and radially with the first recess (claim 49) (as noted in the Specification objection above, these limitations are not even recited anywhere in the original written Specification), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have aligned the incorporated concave surface on the nodules in Champagne to have been concentric, coaxially and radially aligned (as at least suggested by Albert, and since both Champagne and Jaegar already consider rounded shapes (i.e. which would be necessary for there to be a “concentric” alignment) as shape choices for the nodules/protrusions/raised portions) with the underlying first recess in order to provide an optimal suction/gripping capability (i.e. if the alignment were anything other than concentric/coaxial/radially aligned with the first recess, suction/grip would likely be hindered as compared to a concentric/coaxial/radial alignment which would provide a more evenly distributed negative pressure vacuum during use), and further since it would have been obvious to try such a concentric/coaxial/radial alignment of the concave surface relative to the first recess since doing so would involve choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Jaeger “is vague and non-sensical as to the top of the pyramid shape” and that while Jaeger states “the rounded top can have a concave or convex surface”, “[t]here is no illustration of such, nor does Jaeger explain how a rounded top can have a concave surface or where such surface is on the rounded top, for example, whether such is on a sloped side portion or the rounded top” (Page 13 of Remarks). Applicant further argues “[n]or does the two-part attachment (see Figs. 8-10) disclose, teach or suggest that such extends inwardly into the first recess”. First, Examiner notes that the presence of a “concave surface” would necessarily have some open, inwardly-extending curved cavity. Whether Jaeger actually illustrates such a concavity in its drawings cannot change that fact. If there were no inward extension, then the surface would not be concave. Second, Jaeger is not being relied upon for the presence of a first recess. This is already present in Champagne, as the updated annotated Fig. 6C identifies. The identified distal end of Champagne’s structure is what has been modified by the teachings of Jaeger to have a concave surface. With the incorporation of the concave surface, as well as Anstey’s teachings of a uniform thickness, the concave surface would necessarily extend inward into the identified first recess, for each of the nodules, post-modification.
Applicant argues that Examiner has used improper hindsight reasoning when applying the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection combinations of the cited prior art references, alleging that hindsight, speculation and conclusory statements have been made that are not supported by the cited references to come up with a combination that would either destroy the clear intention of the reference or modify such in a manner that goes against the clear teachings of the references. Examiner notes that the motivation for combining references need not only come from teachings in the references themselves, but also may be gleaned from that which is known to one having ordinary skill in the art. Champagne, the base reference, already teaches spaced-apart nodules that are open to the interior side of the glove, as shown in annotated Fig. 6C above. Jaeger is only being relied upon, at least with respect to independent claim 1, for teaching that it is a known concept for protrusions (i.e. analogous to the raised portions in Champagne) to have a concave surface at their tops. Such a modification is not, in fact, destructive to the intention of Champagne’s glove concept, as it only improves the gripping capability of the glove with the addition of the concave surfaces to each of the distal ends of the raised portions (i.e. nodules).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732