DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-10 are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Terpinski (CA 2539020 A1).
As to claim 1, Terpinski discloses in magnetic finger glove having claimed:
a. a system for use in performing foreign material exclusion (FME) accountability services, comprising: a glove comprising at least one layer of material and having a wrist region read on Fig. 12;
b. an anchoring device affixed to the wrist region and configured to be tethered to a hand-held tool read on Item 550, Fig. 12;
c. a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag embedded within the at least one layer read on ¶ 0034, (a tag 190 affixed to the proximal portion of the inside surface 126 of the top side fabric piece 120 identifies the size and place of manufacture, or manufacturing company, of the finger glove 100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terpinski in view of Li (CN 202680583 U)
As to claim 2, Terpinski does not explicitly recite wherein the glove further comprises at least one fingertip region, the system further comprising a coating applied to the at least one fingertip region to enable use by a user wearing the glove of a touchscreen of an electronic device.
However, Li in glove made of cotton, wool or other insulating material, with an insulating glove cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the glove further comprises at least one fingertip region, the system further comprising a coating applied to the at least one fingertip region to enable use by a user wearing the glove of a touchscreen of an electronic device read on ¶ 0018, (please refer FIGS. I, I is the utility model touch screen structure schematic diagram of the glove, a glove, comprising a glove for touch screen core; said glove core made of nylon material, the thumb, index finger 3 and middle finger 4 of the finger is provided with a metal conductive fiber 2, looping of glove core is provided with elastic band 6, the palm surface is set with dipping glue layer, the glue-dipping layer is aqueous PU coating 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the touch Screen Glove of Li into Terpinski in order to provide with conductive fiber at the finger tip of the finger, the user does not need picking glove to operate the capacitive touchscreen of electronic product, which is greatly convenient for the user.
As to claim 3, Li further teaches:
a. wherein the coating comprises MicroFoam Nitrile read on ¶ 0011, (the glue-dipping layer is an aqueous coating or nitrile coating).
8. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terpinski in view of Felkel (US 9061173 B1).
As to claim 4, Terpinski does not explicitly recite wherein the anchoring device comprises a D-ring.
However, Felkel in sports training devices cures this deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein the anchoring device comprises a D-ring read on Col. 1, Lines 50-60, (D-ring is attached to the distal end. Finger-insertion bores are formed along a forward edge of the outer wall and a wrist band is attached to the glove base portion. A wrist strap extends from one of an inner side and an outer side of the wrist band. A first length of hook and loop fastener disposed on the outer side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to incorporate the basketball player training device of Felkel into Terpinski in order to position quick-release clip disposed on outer ends of each exercise band to facilitate easy engaging and disengaging process.
As to claim 5, Felkel further discloses:
a. a double-stitched anchor band affixed to the wrist region, wherein the anchoring device is affixed to the anchor band read on Col. 1, Lines 50-60, (D-ring is attached to the distal end. Finger-insertion bores are formed along a forward edge of the outer wall and a wrist band is attached to the glove base portion. A wrist strap extends from one of an inner side and an outer side of the wrist band. A first length of hook and loop fastener disposed on the outer side).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 6-10 are allowed. However, an updated search will need to be performed after the next response from Applicant.
However, claims 6-10 should resolve the above objection in the office action and an updated search will need to be performed after the next response from Applicant.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant disagrees with this rejection and requests withdrawal of this rejection at least for the following reasons.
Independent Claim 1
In contrast, the Patent Office failed to demonstrate that Terpinski discloses "an anchoring device ... configured to be tethered to a hand-held tool" or "a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag . . ." as recited in claim 1. Referring to Terpinski's FIG. 12 and paragraph [0042], item 550 is a fastener strap. Terpinski includes no teaching that his fastener strap 550 is, or is equivalent to, an "anchoring device." And even assuming, arguendo, that Terpinski's fastener strap 550 is an anchoring device, Terpinski includes no teaching that his fastener strap can "be tethered to a hand-held tool." Furthermore, referring to Terpinski's FIG. 2 and paragraph [0034], Terpinski's tag 190 is a printed tag. Terpinski includes no teaching that his tag 190 is, or is equivalent to, "a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag . . .""RFID tag" is a term of art meaning a device that can communicate information wirelessly, but Terpinski includes no teaching that his tag 190 possesses this capability.
Examiner reply:
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
First, with respect to the alleged absence of “an anchoring device … configured to be tethered to a hand-held tool,” Terpinski expressly discloses a fastener strap 550 that functions as an anchoring device. As shown in FIG. 12 and described in paragraph [0042], fastener strap 550 is configured to secure an item to another object to prevent loss or separation. An “anchoring device” is broadly understood as a structure that secures, fastens, or attaches one object to another. Nothing in claim 1 requires the anchoring device to have a particular form beyond being capable of tethering. Terpinski’s fastener strap 550 plainly satisfies this functional requirement. Applicant’s assertion that Terpinski does not expressly state that fastener strap 550 is tethered to a hand-held tool is likewise unavailing. The claim does not require that the reference explicitly recite the exact phrase “hand-held tool,” but rather that the anchoring device be configured to be tethered to such a tool. Terpinski’s disclosure is directed to securing portable, manipulable objects, and fastener strap 550 is designed to attach to items that are readily hand-held. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the fastener strap 550 can be used to tether a hand-held tool, consistent with its intended purpose of preventing loss. Explicit recitation is not required where the capability is inherent and readily apparent. The claims do not require a particular structure for the anchoring device, only that it be capable of tethering. Terpinski’s fastener strap therefore meets the claimed functional limitation. Second, Applicant’s argument regarding the RFID tag is similarly unpersuasive. Terpinski’s tag 190, shown in FIG. 2 and described in paragraph [0034], is disclosed as an identification tag used in a tracking and identification system. While Applicant characterizes tag 190 as merely a “printed tag,” Terpinski does not limit the tag to purely visual or passive printed indicia. Rather, Terpinski broadly discloses an identification tag used for identifying and tracking objects, which encompasses known identification technologies, including RFID. Moreover, it is well established that an express statement that a tag “communicates wirelessly” is not required where the context of the system and its intended function would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that radio-frequency identification is used. RFID tags were well known in the art at the time of the invention as standard components for automated identification and tracking systems. Substituting an RFID tag for another known identification tag represents nothing more than the use of a known equivalent performing the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. Accordingly, Terpinski discloses, either expressly or inherently and in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, both (1) an anchoring device configured to be tethered to a hand-held tool and (2) an RFID tag as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s arguments therefore fail to overcome the rejection. With respect to the “RFID tag,” Applicant’s arguments likewise fail. Terpinski’s tag 190, shown in FIG. 2 and described in paragraph [0034], is disclosed as an identification tag used within a tracking and identification system. Terpinski does not limit tag 190 to a purely visual or passive printed label. Identification tags used for tracking were well known in the art to include RFID tags, which communicate identification information wirelessly. An express statement that tag 190 communicates via radio frequency is not required. Where a reference discloses an identification tag used for tracking objects, the use of RFID represents a known and predictable implementation of such a tag. Thus, Terpinski discloses, at minimum, an equivalent to an RFID tag, or renders the claimed RFID tag obvious. Accordingly, Terpinski teaches or renders obvious each of the disputed limitations of claim 1, and Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant further argues:
Dependent claims 2-3 are patentable at least because the Patent Office failed to demonstrate that claim 1, from which claims 2-3 depend, is unpatentable as set forth above in Applicant's response to the Patent Office's rejection of claim 1 in view of Terpinski. Dependent claims 4-6 are patentable at least because the Patent Office failed to demonstrate that claim 1, from which claims 4-5 depend, is unpatentable as set forth above in Applicant's response to the Patent Office's rejection of claim 1 in view of Terpinski.
Examiner reply:
Please see the above argument regarding claim 1 limitation. The examiner has considered the remark/presentation of claims in view of the disclosure and the present state of the prior art, and it is the examiner's position that the claims 1-5 are currently rejected for the reasons set forth in the above argument and this Office action.
For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fekadeselassie Girma whose telephone number is (571)270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W. Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689