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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 11 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected embodiments of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/04/25.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 and the claims that depend therefrom are 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. It is unclear what the metes and bounds would be of the limitation “the plurality of enhanced sections having at least one enhanced physical property in relation to the primary yarn”, what would or would not be considered an enhanced physical property? Since the limitation can have endless interpretations, the limitation is being held as being indefinite.
Claim 18 and the claims that depend therefrom are 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. It is unclear how the “spandex” of claim 18 relates to the spandex of claim 14, is this another spandex plaiting yarn in addition to the spandex plaiting yarn of claim 14. It is unclear how many spandex plaiting yarns are required to read on the claim.
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 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, 4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolmes et al. (US 7,178,323) in view of Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094).
In regard to claim 1, Kolmes et al. teaches a protective glove (figure 5) comprising: a primary yarn defining a palm section, thumb section, index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section, the primary yarn having an interior surface defining an interior surface of the glove and an exterior surface defining an exterior surface of the glove (see figure 5), the primary yarn comprising a first core strand comprising polyester, and a second core strand comprising stainless steel wire (see figure 3, column 10, lines 44-48 and column 7, lines 19-22 and lines 63-67), and at least one cover strand wrapped around the first core strand and the second core strand (see figure 3: column 8, lines 42-46).
However, Kolmes et al. fails to teach at least one plaiting yarn plaited to portions of the exterior surface of the primary yarn to form a plurality of enhanced sections formed on the exterior surface of the glove, the plurality of enhanced sections having at least one enhanced physical property in relation to the primary yarn.
Moreland et al. teaches a cut resistant glove having a liner layer (liner: 300) defining the glove structure and cut resistant plaited portions (paragraph 0031, identifier 430: plaited layer), the plaited portions are only located at specific locations on the glove where greater cut protection is desired (paragraph 0032 details how the glove can have plaited portions/zones as desired for use applications or desired properties).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove of Kolmes with plaited sections/zones along the glove liner as taught by Moreland et al., since the glove of Kolmes provided with plaiting zones/sections would provide the glove with additional exterior portions that would provide enhanced cut resistance along the glove zones/sections as needed providing a customized and more protective glove for the intended use (see paragraph 0032 or Moreland et al.).
Claim 4, the combined references teach wherein the at least one plaiting yarn comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of spandex and a moisture wicking yarn (Moreland et al.: paragraphs 0027 and 0031, teaches the plaited yarn being a moisture wicking yarn).
In regard to Claim 21, Moreland et al. wherein the enhanced sections are formed on the exterior surface of the index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section (see figures 6-9).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolmes et al. (US 7,178,323) and Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Threlkeld et al. (US 7,111,445).
While, Kolmes teaches the first core strand of the primary yarn comprising polyester, Kolmes and Moreland fail to teach wherein the first core strand of the primary yarn comprises flat polyester.
In regard to claim 7, Threlkeld et al. teaches a core strand of the primary yarn comprising flat polyester (column 4, lines 52-54).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyester core strand of the primary yarn of Kolmes and Moreland to be a flat polyester as taught by Threlkeld et al., since the core yarn of Kolmes being a flat polyester would provide a tougher and more durable core yarn construction.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolmes et al. (US 7,178,323) and Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 2014/0090349).
Kolmes and Moreland fail to teach the at least one cover strand of the primary yarn comprising a textured polyester. Kolmes teaches the cover strand to be made from polyester (column 8, lines 42-51).
In regard to claim 2, Fischer teaches a cover strand to be made from a textured polyester (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyester cover strand of Kolmes and Moreland to be a textured polyester as taught by Fischer, since the polyester strand of Kolmes being textured would improve grip and provide increased strength of the strand.
In regard to claim 8, Kolmes teaches the cover strand of the primary yarn comprises a first cover yarn of stainless steel (column 8, lines 42-47 and column 7, lines 19-21) and the second cover strand of polyester (column 8, lines 42-51).
However, Kolmes fails to teach second cover strand being a textured polyester.
In regard to claim 2, Fischer teaches a cover strand to be made from a textured polyester (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyester cover strand of Kolmes and Moreland to be a textured polyester as taught by Fischer, since the polyester strand of Kolmes being textured would improve grip and provide increased strength of the strand.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 7,934,395) and Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094).
In regard to claim 1, Zhu teaches a protective glove (glove of figure 1) comprising: (a) a primary yarn defining a palm section, thumb section, index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section, the primary yarn having an interior surface defining an interior surface of the glove and an exterior surface of the glove (primary yarn is glove lining yarn: identifier 7; column 4, lines 6-24 detailing lining yarn forming lining layer of glove); and (b) a first plaiting yarn comprising a moisture wicking yarn plaited to portions of the exterior surface of the primary yarn (1st plaiting yarn/companion yarn: 6, made of moisture wicking yarn: column 3, lines 48-53) and a second plaiting yarn (cut resistant composite yarn 5) plaited to the first plaiting yarn to form a plurality of enhanced sections formed on the exterior surface of the glove, the plurality of enhanced sections having at least one substantially enhanced physical characteristic in relation to the primary yarn (cut resistance is provided by two plaited yarns, the first plaited yarn being the companion yarn (6) and the second plaited yarn being the cut resistant composite yarn (5) the two plaiting yarns (5, 6) would create more enhanced cut resistance in relation to the primary yarn 7 alone; column 2, lines 36-48 detailing cut resistant yarn material and properties).
However, Zhu fails to teach the primary yarn defining an exterior surface of the glove, since the plaiting yarns are plaited throughout the glove.
Moreland et al. teaches a cut resistant glove having a liner layer (liner: 300) defining the glove structure and cut resistant plaited portions (paragraph 0031, identifier 430: plaited layer), the plaited portions are only located at specific locations on the glove where greater cut protection is desired (paragraph 0032 details how the glove can have plaited portions/zones as desired for use applications or desired properties).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove with plaited cut resistant yarns of Zhu with the plaited sections/zones along the glove liner as taught by Moreland et al., since the glove of Zhu provided with plaiting zones/sections would provide the liner layer to have both glove interior and exterior portions while also providing enhanced cut resistance along the glove zones/sections as needed to provide a customized protective glove for intended use (see paragraph 0032 or Moreland et al.).
In regard to claim 10, Zhu does teach the second plaited yarns providing cut resistant, and the cut resistant yarn comprising KEVLAR (column 2, lines 61-67 through column 3, lines 1-13), however, Zhu fails to teach the second plaiting yarns specifically comprising cut-resistant ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.
Moreland et al. teaches the cut resistant yarn of the plaited portions comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (see paragraph 0031 detailing plating yarn can be same as main body yarn and paragraph 0027 that details the yarn can comprise ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the cut resistant second plaiting yarn of Zhu comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene cut resistant yarn as taught by Moreland et al., since the cut resistant second plaiting yarn of Zhu comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene would provide an even stronger aramid yarn composition than that of KEVLAR creating a more cut resistant yarn and zone. Here we are replacing one well-known aramid fiber with another well-known aramid fiber to create a highly cut resistant yarn (see paragraph 0027 of Moreland et al., detailing the user of KEVLAR and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene).
In regard to Claim 22, Moreland et al. wherein the enhanced sections are formed on the exterior surface of the index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section (see figures 6-9).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 7,934,395) and Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kolmes (US 7,178,323) and Threlkeld (US 7,111,445).
In regard to claim 12, the primary yarn of Zhu teaches a cut resistant yarn forming a glove as the primary yarn. However, Shu and Moreland fail to teach the primary yarn comprises a first core strand comprising flat polyester, a second core strand comprising stainless steel wire, and at least one cover strand wrapped around the first core strand and the second core strand.
Kolmes teaches a protective glove (figure 5) comprising: a primary yarn defining a palm section, thumb section, index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section, the primary yarn having an interior surface defining an interior surface of the glove and an exterior surface defining an exterior surface of the glove (see figure 5), the primary yarn comprising a first core strand comprising polyester, and a second core strand comprising stainless steel wire (see figure 3, column 10, lines 44-48 and column 7, lines 19-22 and lines 63-67), and at least one cover strand wrapped around the first core strand and the second core strand (see figure 3: column 8, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the primary yarn of Zhu and Moreland et al. to have core yarns of polyester, stainless steel and a wrapped strand around the core as taught by Kolmes, since the primary yarn of Zhu being a core yarn of polyester and stainless steel with a wrapped strand would provide a cut resistance yarn that would be lightweight, durable.
Threlkeld et al. teaches a core strand of the primary yarn comprising flat polyester (column 4, lines 52-54).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyester core strand of the primary yarn of Zhu, Moreland and Kolmes to be a flat polyester as taught by Threlkeld et al., since the core yarn of Zhu, Moreland, and Kolmes being a flat polyester would provide a tougher and more durable core yarn construction.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 7,934,395), Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094), Kolmes (US 7,178,323) and Threlkeld (US 7,111,445) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kolmes (US 7,178,323) and Fischer (US 2014/0090349).
Zhu, Moreland, Kolmes and Threlkeld fail to teach the cover strand comprising a stainless steel wire or a textured polyester. Kolmes teaches the cover strand of the primary yarn to be polyester (column 8, lines 42-51).
In regard to claim 2, Fischer teaches a cover strand to be made from a textured polyester (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyester cover strand of Zhu, Moreland, Kolmes and Threlkeld to be a textured polyester as taught by Fischer, since the polyester strand of Zhu, Moreland, Kolmes and Threlkeld being textured would improve grip and provide increased strength of the strand.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 7,934,395) in view of Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094) and Schulein (US 10,520,280).
In regard to claim 14, Zhu teaches a protective glove (glove of figure 1) comprising: (a) a primary yarn defining a palm section, thumb section, index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section, the primary yarn having an interior surface defining an interior surface of the glove and an exterior surface (primary yarn is glove lining yarn: identifier 7; column 4, lines 6-24 detailing lining yarn forming lining layer of glove); and at least one plaiting yarn plaited to portions of the exterior surface of the primary yarn (companion yarn: 6).
However, Zhu fails to teach the primary yarn defining an exterior surface of the glove, since the plaiting yarns are plaited throughout the glove and the plaiting yarn comprising spandex.
Moreland et al. teaches a cut resistant glove having a liner layer (liner: 300) defining the glove structure and cut resistant plaited portions (paragraph 0031, identifier 430: plaited layer), the plaited portions are only located at specific locations on the glove where greater cut protection is desired (paragraph 0032 details how the glove can have plaited portions/zones as desired for use applications or desired properties).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the glove with plaited cut resistant yarns of Zhu with the plaited sections/zones along the glove liner as taught by Moreland et al., since the glove of Zhu provided with plaiting zones/sections would provide the liner layer to have both glove interior and exterior portions while also providing enhanced cut resistance along the glove zones/sections as needed to provide a customized protective glove for intended use (see paragraph 0032 or Moreland et al.).
While, Zhu teaches a first and second plaiting yarn (6, 7) with the first plating yarn (6) being the companion yarn selected from natural fibers, cellulosic fibers, polyester, and aliphatic polyamide fibers (column 3, lines 48-50), Zhu fails to teach the first plaiting yarn being specifically being spandex.
Schulein teaches a glove with cut resistant plaited portions made from cut resistant yarn of a natural or synthetic fiber in conjunction with spandex (column 4, lines 10-16), which would make the first plaited yarn of Zhu having a spandex composition.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the companion yarn/first plaited yarn of Zhu and Moreland et al., with the spandex fiber as taught by Schulein, since the natural fibers, cellulosic fibers, polyester, and/or aliphatic polyamide fibers of the companion yarn/first plaiting yarn of Zhu provided in a cut resistant yarn of a natural or synthetic fiber in conjunction with spandex would provide a complain/first plaiting yarn that has improved feel and fit characteristics due to the addition of the spandex fiber (Schulein: column 4, lines 10-16).
In regard to claim 18, Schulein teaches a glove with cut resistant plaited portions made from cut resistant yarn of a natural or synthetic fiber in conjunction with spandex (column 4, lines 10-16), which would make the first plaited yarn of Zhu having a spandex composition.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the companion yarn/first plaited yarn of Zhu and Moreland et al., with the spandex fiber as taught by Schulein, since the natural fibers, cellulosic fibers, polyester, and/or aliphatic polyamide fibers of the companion yarn/first plaiting yarn of Zhu provided in a cut resistant yarn of a natural or synthetic fiber in conjunction with spandex would provide a complain/first plaiting yarn that has improved feel and fit characteristics due to the addition of the spandex fiber (Schulein: column 4, lines 10-16).
While, Zhu does teach the second plaited yarns providing cut resistant, and the cut resistant yarn comprising KEVLAR (column 2, lines 61-67 through column 3, lines 1-13), Zhu fails to teach the second plaiting yarns specifically comprising cut-resistant ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.
Moreland et al. teaches the cut resistant yarn of the plaited portions comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (see paragraph 0031 detailing plating yarn can be same as main body yarn and paragraph 0027 that details the yarn can comprise ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the cut resistant second plaiting yarn of Zhu comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene cut resistant yarn as taught by Moreland et al., since the cut resistant second plaiting yarn of Zhu comprising ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene would provide an even stronger aramid yarn composition than that of KEVLAR creating a more cut resistant yarn and zone. Here we are replacing one well-known aramid fiber with another well-known aramid fiber to create a highly cut resistant yarn (see paragraph 0027 of Moreland et al., detailing the user of KEVLAR and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 7,934,395), Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094) and Schulin (US10,520,280) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kolmes (US 7,178,323).
In regard to claim 19, the primary yarn of Zhu teaches a cut resistant yarn forming a glove as the primary yarn. However, Zhu, Moreland and Schulin fail to teach the primary yarn comprises a first core strand comprising polyester, a second core strand comprising stainless steel wire, and at least one cover strand wrapped around the first core strand and the second core strand.
Kolmes teaches a protective glove (figure 5) comprising: a primary yarn defining a palm section, thumb section, index finger section, middle finger section, ring finger section and baby finger section, the primary yarn having an interior surface defining an interior surface of the glove and an exterior surface defining an exterior surface of the glove (see figure 5), the primary yarn comprising a first core strand comprising polyester, and a second core strand comprising stainless steel wire (see figure 3, column 10, lines 44-48 and column 7, lines 19-22 and lines 63-67), and at least one cover strand wrapped around the first core strand and the second core strand (see figure 3: column 8, lines 42-46).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the primary yarn of Zhu, Moreland et al. and Schulein to have core yarns of polyester, stainless steel and a wrapped strand around the core as taught by Kolmes, since the primary yarn of Zhu being a core yarn of polyester and stainless steel with a wrapped strand would provide a cut resistance yarn that would be lightweight, durable.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 7,934,395), Moreland et al. (US 2013/0213094), Schulein and Kolmes (US 7,178,323) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Fischer (US 2014/0090349).
Zhu, Moreland, Schulein, and Kolmes fail to teach the cover strand comprising a stainless steel wire or a textured polyester. Kolmes teaches the cover strand of the primary yarn to be polyester (column 8, lines 42-51).
In regard to claim 2, Fischer teaches a cover strand to be made from a textured polyester (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the polyester cover strand of Zhu, Moreland, Schulein and Kolmes to be a textured polyester as taught by Fischer, since the polyester strand of Zhu, Moreland, Schulein and Kolmes being textured would improve grip and provide increased strength of the strand.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,877,529. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both detail a glove made of a primary yarn with a first and second plaiting yarn knitted thereto to enhanced portions along the exterior of the glove (see claims 9 and 14 of the instant application vs. claims 1-6 of US 9,877,529).
Claims 9, 10, 14 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,128. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both detail a glove made of a primary yarn with a first and second plaiting yarn knitted thereto to provide cut resistant portions along the exterior of the glove; and wherein the first plaiting yarn comprises spandex (see claims 9, 10, 14 and 18 of the instant application vs. claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-13 of US 9,877,529).
Claims 9, 10, 14, 18 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,064. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both detail a glove made of a primary yarn with a first and second plaiting yarn knitted thereto to enhanced portions along the exterior of the glove; wherein the first plaiting yarn is spandex (see claims 9, 10, 14, 18 and 22 of the instant application vs. claims 1-7 of US 11,918,064).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Hughes (US 2013/0000005) is of particular relevance to the claim invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 T Ostrup can be reached on (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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732