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 election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears a typo has occurred with the spelling of the term “denier.” There are some instances where the correct spelling and used, but there are 46 different instances within the specification with it misspelled as “Dernier”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: It appears a typo has occurred with the spelling of the term “denier and is misspelled as “Dernier”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20100037364A1 issued to Saunders et al. in view of USPUB 20200128890A1 issued to Herath et al.
Saunders et al teach making chemical handling glove that is flexible and lightweight comprises a cured, liquid-impervious polymeric latex shell, a knitted cut resistant liner comprising a cotton yarn and at least one cut resistant yarn, the liner being infiltrated with a soft nitrile or polyurethane layer such that the liner bonds to the shell. The soft nitrile or polyurethane layer seals interstices of the cut resistant liner and replicates its rough texture on the external surface of the glove, providing enhanced grip properties. A thin nitrile latex layer applied to and cured together with the polyurethane layer to protect the polyurethane layer from oil or chemical degradation. The intimate seal thus created between the shell and the liner prevents accumulation of liquid there between, which prevents formation of a liquid boundary layer and interference with grip properties of the glove [Abstract, ¶¶ 0002, 0018]. The closest embodiment is that shown below clearly display the layers shown in Figure 1 of Saunders et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(15) = a thin overcoat of nitrile latex rubber and serves as Applicant’s first layer, which is a shaped polymer;
(13) = is a knitted cut resistant liner formed of yarn and having interstices through it;
(14) = is the liquid-impervious polymeric shell by the infiltration of water-based soft nitrile or polyurethane latex where the fluid polymeric material permeates the liner into the interstices;
(12) = The liquid- impervious polymeric shell 12 which serves as Applicant’s second layer and in which the liner is embedded in the polymeric material;
(11) = An optional moisture management liner 11 on the skin-contacting surface can be an open-celled foam, or an electrostatically applied flock, such as cotton flock = a textile layer, such that the second layer is located between the first layer and the textile layer.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a garment material comprising:
a first layer, wherein the first layer is a shaped polymer defining a shape of the first layer; a second layer, wherein the second layer is a shaped polymer that is provided at one or more locations on the first layer, the second layer taking the shape of the first layer at said one or more locations; and a textile layer; wherein the second layer is located between the first layer and the textile layer; wherein the second layer comprises a liner embedded in the shaped polymer of the second layer, the liner being formed of yarn and there are interstices through the liner, and wherein: (a) the yarn of the liner has a weight per length of 10 to 60 Dernier; and (b) the liner has a weight per area in the garment material or in a region of the garment material that is from 5 to 35 g/m2; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Saunders et al.. who teaches making a garment material [¶ 0018], comprising: providing a first layer [¶¶ 0018, 0032 -0033 and Figure 3], which is a shaped polymer [¶¶ 0018-0019]; the first layer a liner formed of yarn and having interstices through it [¶¶ 0019-0020]; applying to the liner a fluid polymeric material that permeates the interstices [¶¶ 0020, 0031]; the fluid polymeric material flows in and is solidified to form a second layer in which the liner is embedded in the solid polymeric material [¶¶ 0019-0020]; and applying fibers to form a textile layer [¶¶0029-0030], such that the second layer is located between the first layer and the textile layer [¶¶ 0017-0020].
Saunders et al. teach the structure and spatial arrangement of the layers in the glove. Saunders et al do not teach (a) that the yarn of the liner has a weight per length of 10 to 60 Dernier; and (b) that the liner has a weight per area in the garment material or in a region of the garment material that is from 5 to 35 g/m2;
This is remedied by the teachings of Herath et al.
Herath et al. are from the same art of endeavor in creating multi-layered supported gloves.
Herath et al. teaches using yarns in the liner that are 30 denier or less. This overlaps with Applicant’s sought range of 10-60 denier. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used a 30-60 denier yarn as the yarn of the liner. One would have been motivated to do so as shown by Herath et al using such yarn sized denier in a knitted liner creates a lighter, thinner and more flexible composite glove.
Saunders et al. teach the structure, spatial arrangement of the layers in the glove and method of knitting the glove. Saunders et al do not teach (b) that the liner has a weight per area in the garment material or in a region of the garment material that is from 5 to 35 g/m2. A skilled artisan would have known that employing a light weight textile layer is well within the purview of the prior art and the skilled person would willingly be motivated to use a lightweight textile in a glove to keep it lightweight.
Herath et al use a 21 gauge knitted fabric with 30 denier yarns and 20 denier yarn [¶ 0042] and thus uses the same component and knitting as the embodiment of the application, it can be expected to have the same g/m2.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the yarn of the liner has a weight per length of from 25 to 50 Dernier, and the liner in the garment material or a region thereof has a weight per area of from 15 to 27 g/m2; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth with the combination of Saunders in view of Herath above.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 2, wherein the yarn of the liner has a weight per length of from 35 to 45 Dernier, and the liner in the garment material or a region thereof has a weight per area of from 18 to 24 g/m2; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth with the combination of Saunders in view of Herath above.
Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the liner is a knitted liner and is made by a knitting machine with a gauge of from 19 to 25; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0010 of Herath et al, where they teach using a 21 gauge knitted liner. It should be noted that absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the garment material is from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0032 of Herath et al, which teach that the A cross-sectional thickness of the thin lightweight supported glove 400 generally ranges from 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm or approximately thereof.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 5, wherein the thickness of the garment material is from 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0032 of Herath et al, which teach that the A cross-sectional thickness of the thin lightweight supported glove 400 generally ranges from 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm or approximately thereof.
Regarding Claim 7, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises two sub-layers of polymeric material; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0033-0034 of Saunders who teaches that the polymer layer 12 may be built up and be more than one layer.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the first layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm or less; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0032 of Herath et al, which teach that the cross-sectional thickness of the thin lightweight supported glove 400 generally ranges from 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm or approximately thereof. A skilled artisan in the field of glove manufacturing would consider it obvious that if the total thickness of a multi-layer (supported) glove is intended to be extremely thin, such as in the 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm range, the first layer must logically be designed with a thickness that fits within that total, often resulting in a remarkably thin, flexible, and dexterous first layer.
Regarding Claim 9, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the second layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm or less; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0032 of Herath et al, which teach that the cross-sectional thickness of the thin lightweight supported glove 400 generally ranges from 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm or approximately thereof. A skilled artisan in the field of glove manufacturing would consider it obvious that if the total thickness of a multi-layer (supported) glove is intended to be extremely thin, such as in the 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm range, the second layer must logically be designed with a thickness that fits within that total, often resulting in a remarkably thin, flexible, and dexterous first layer.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the yarn is a nylon yarn; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0020 of Saunders et al and ¶ 0025, 0026 and 0029 of Herath et al.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 10, wherein the yarn of the liner has a weight per length of from 38 to 42 Dernier, and the liner in the garment material or a region thereof has a weight per area of from 20 to 22 g/m2, and wherein the liner is a knitted liner and is made by a knitting machine with a gauge of from 19 to 25; Applicant is directed to rationale for claims 1-4 above and further absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability 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. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the garment material consists of the first layer, the second layer and the textile layer; Applicant is directed to rationale for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 1, wherein the polymer of the first layer is selected from the group consisting of nitrile latex, natural latex, neoprene, and butyl rubber and the polymer of the second layer is selected from the group consisting of nitrile latex, natural latex, neoprene, and butyl rubber; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0019-0021 of Saunders et al. and ¶ 0023-0024 of Herath et al.
Regarding Claim 14, where Applicant seeks that a garment comprising the garment material of claim 1; Applicant is directed to title of both Saunders and Herath et al. which teaches a glove. A glove is a garment.
Regarding Claim 15, where Applicant seeks that the garment of claim 14, wherein the garment is a glove; Applicant is directed to title of both Saunders and Herath et al. which teaches a glove. A glove is a garment.
Regarding Claim 16, where Applicant seeks that the garment of claim 15, wherein the liner has a weight per area in a palm and/or finger region of the glove of from 18 to 24 g/m2; Neither reference teaches the specific breakdown of what the weight per area in the palm or finger resin is from 18 to 24 g/m2. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the liner the liner has a weight per area in a palm and/or finger region of the glove of from 18 to 24 g/m2, would allow the glove to still be flexible and less cumbersome during wear.
Regarding Claim 17, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 15, wherein the glove has a palm or finger region comprising the garment material which has a thickness from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm; Neither reference teaches the specific breakdown of what the glove has a palm or finger region comprising the garment material which has a thickness from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Having the glove has a palm or finger region comprising the garment material which has a thickness from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm would allow the glove to still be flexible and less cumbersome and more penetration resistant in the palm or finer region.
Regarding Claim 18, where Applicant seeks that the garment material of claim 17, wherein the thickness of the garment material in the region of the palm and/or fingers of the glove is from 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0030, 0041 of Herath et al who teaches that the total thickness of the glove is 0.50 mm to 0.75 mm . Therefore, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious that specific regions would have a portion of the total thickness. One would have been motivated to have a thickness in the palm or finger portion of the glove to be 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm to reinforce the areas of the glove that get more wear.
Regarding Claim 19, where Applicant seeks that the garment of claim 15, wherein: the yarn of the liner has a weight per length of from 35 to 45 Dernier, the liner in the glove has a palm and/or finger area and the palm and/or finger area of the liner in the glove has a weight per area of from 18 to 24 g/m2, the yarn is a nylon yarn, the liner is a knitted liner and is made by a knitting machine with a gauge of from 19 to 25, the first layer comprises from two sub-layers of polymeric material, and the first layer has a total thickness of 0.001 mm to 0.6 mm; Applicant is directed to rationale set forth with the combination of Saunders in view of Herath above for claims 1-15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Asp