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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on January 8, 2026, claims 1-19 have been amended, and claim 20 has been canceled. Claim 21 is new. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on January 8, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated October 8, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Specification – Disclosure
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the body of the hand covering system being “a unitary body” as recited in claim 4
A shell for covering a glove, comprising “a unitary shell body” as recited in claim 21
Although Applicant’s remarks point to several portions of Applicant’s disclosure for support, the word “unitary” cannot be found in the application as originally disclosed. Instead, at those portions, and in particular at [0024], Applicant’s disclosure discusses interior stitching (114C) along a seam between palmar and dorsal portions of the body in Figs. 1A-1C. That said, Examiner notes that the term "unitary" is very broad and merely means "of or relating to a unit" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Therefore, in light of this broad definition and the extent of Applicant’s disclosure, the above limitations are not considered new matter and will be interpreted according to above definition. See rejection of the claims under 102 and 103 below for additional discussion.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because at lines 3, 5, and 6, the numbers in parentheses (i.e., (1), (2), and (3)) should be removed from the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to because at line 2, “through-hole” should read “through hole”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10, 12-19, and 21 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the glove shell is made of a stretch-blend material” at lines 1-2. It is unclear how or if the stretch-blend material introduced in claim 8 is meant to be different than the “blended material” introduced in claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If meant to refer to the same material, it is suggested that the limitation at claim 8 instead read “wherein the blended material is a stretch-blend material. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the synthetic material” at lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the stretch-blend material”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the non-thumb portion of a glove” at line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a non-thumb portion of a glove”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the thumb portion of the glove” at line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a thumb portion of the glove”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the cover” at line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the cover” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the body”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 14 further recites the limitation “the cover” at lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that each instance of the limitation instead read “the body”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the cover is made of a blended material” at lines 1-2. It is unclear how or if the blended material introduced in claim 17 is meant to be different than the “stretch-blend material” introduced in claim 12 from which claim 17 depends. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cover” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If meant to refer to the same material, it is suggested that claim 17 be canceled. It is also suggested that the “the cover” instead read “the body”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the limitation refers to the same material of clam 12 when applying prior art. See rejection under 112(d) below for additional discussion.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “A shell for covering a glove, comprising:” at line 1. It is unclear if the shell or the glove is meant to comprise the subsequently recited structure. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “A shell for covering a glove, the shell comprising:”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the non-thumb portion” at lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a non-thumb portion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the thumb portion” at line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a thumb portion”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 9-10 and 13-19 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the cover is made of a blended material” at lines 1-2. As the cover was previously recited as being formed of “a stretch-blend material” in claim 12 from which claim 17 depends, claim 17 is interpreted as failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. See rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion. It is suggested that the claim be canceled.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the stretch-blend material in combination with the trapezoidal cross-section, is configured to compress against the glove to reinforce contouring and minimize creases or slack” at lines 1-4. As the subject matter of claim 18 appears to have been previously recited in claim 12 from which claim 18 depends, claim 18 is interpreted as failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. It is suggested that the claim be canceled.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 21, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0250565 to Willows et al. (hereinafter, “Willows”).
Regarding claim 21, Willows teaches a shell for covering a glove (See Willows, Fig. 3; glove shell (10) is capable of fitting over or covering a hypothetical glove), comprising: a unitary shell body (See Willows, Fig. 3; glove shell (10) has body forming an overall unit; glove shell (10) has a unitary body inasmuch as Applicant’s invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “unitary” and in light of the extent of Applicant’s disclosure; Examiner notes that the term "unitary" is very broad and merely means "of or relating to a unit" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); see objection to the written disclosure of the specification above for additional discussion); wherein the unitary shell body comprising a covering portion for fitting over the non-thumb portion of the glove (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows below; non-thumb covering portion (15) of glove shell (10) is capable of covering over a non-thumb portion of a hypothetical glove when the glove shell (10) is worn over the hypothetical glove; 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 covering portion comprising a closed rounded distal end that is configured to fit over the non-thumb portion of the glove and an opened proximal end (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows below; rounded distal end and opened proximal end of glove shell (10); rounded distal end is capable of fitting over a hypothetical non-thumb portion of a hypothetical glove); and a through hole opening formed within the unitary shell body and on a side of the unitary shell body between the closed rounded distal end and the opened proximal end (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows below; through hole on side of glove shell (10) between glove shell ends; through hole is formed through the unitary glove shell (10) and is considered formed within the overall unit of the glove shell (10)), the through hole opening configured to receive and expose in whole or in part the thumb portion of the glove and surround a corresponding base of the thumb portion of the glove (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows below; through hole is capable of receiving and at least partially surrounding a base of a thumb portion of a hypothetical glove; thumb portion of the hypothetical glove is capable of being exposed, in whole or in part, when glove shell (10) is fitted over the hypothetical glove).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Willows
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows in view of US 2018/0263312 to Chen (hereinafter, “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Willows teaches a hand covering system comprising: a glove shell comprising a body that comprises (1) a covering portion for fitting over the non-thumb portion of the glove (See Willows, annotated Fig. 3 above; glove shell (10) includes non-thumb covering portion (15) of glove shell (10) which is capable of covering over a non-thumb portion of a hypothetical glove when the glove shell (10) is worn over the hypothetical glove; 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 glove shell comprising a closed rounded distal end that is configured to fit over the non-thumb portion of the glove, (2) an opened proximal end (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; rounded distal end and opened proximal end of glove shell (10); rounded distal end is capable of fitting over a hypothetical non-thumb portion of a hypothetical glove), and (3) a through hole formed within the body and on a side of the glove shell between the closed rounded distal end and the opened proximal end, the glove shell having a trapezoidal cross-section (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; through hole on side of glove shell (10) between glove shell ends and above portion having trapezoidal cross-section (also seen in Figs. 11-18); through hole is formed through the glove shell (10) and is considered formed within the overall unit of the glove shell (10)), and the through hole opening is configured to receive and expose in whole or in part the thumb portion of the glove and at least partially surround a corresponding base of the thumb portion of the glove (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; through hole is capable of receiving and at least partially surrounding a base of a thumb portion of a hypothetical glove; thumb portion of the hypothetical glove is capable of being exposed, in whole or in part, when glove shell (10) is fitted over the hypothetical glove).
That said, although Willows teaches the glove shell which is capable of fitting over a hypothetical glove as claimed, Willows is silent to explicitly disclosing a glove having a thumb portion and a non-thumb portion, i.e., the presence of the underlying hypothetical glove itself.
However, Chen, in a related hand covering art, is directed to a hand cover system having an exterior glove shell with openings through which an underlying interior glove structure can selectively protrude (See Chen, Figs. 1-8; abstract). More specifically, Chen teaches a glove having a thumb portion and a non-thumb portion (See Chen, Figs. 1-8; interior lining (406) is an interior glove having thumb and non-thumb portions).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to cover the interior glove layer of Chen with the outer glove shell of Willows, the two layer glove system being disclosed by Chen, in order to provide covered protection to a hand of a wearer while still retaining dexterity and tactile feedback with the interior glove layer even when a wearer’s hand protrudes from the outer glove shell (See Chen, [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the glove is a first glove and wherein the glove shell is configured to fit over a second glove different from the first glove (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; glove shell (10) is capable of fitting over a second hypothetical glove different than the first glove as discussed in the modification above).
Regarding claim 11, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the glove shell is imprinted with a ski slope map (Examiner notes that the claim is directed to non-functional descriptive material, i.e. printed matter; where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art; in the instant case, the recited “ski slope map” is purely ornamental and in no way functions with the hand covering system to create a new, unobvious product, and removing the printed matter/indicia would not change the functionality of the product; therefore, the limitation of the claim is not given patent weight; See MPEP 2111.05; Examiner further notes that even if the limitation were given patentable weight for the printed matter, the limitation would be very broad; without any specific details about the map recited in the claim (i.e., names of locations, measurements of the lines/angles, turns/slopes, etc.) a printed straight line would read upon the limitation).
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 10,918,145 to Mitchell (hereinafter, “Mitchell”).
Regarding claim 3, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to a pull tab that is coupled to a cuff portion of the glove shell.
However, Mitchell, in a related glove art, is directed to a glove assembly having inner and outer surfaces and a graspable attachment member (See Mitchell, Figs. 1-2; abstract). More specifically, Mitchell teaches a pull tab that is coupled to a cuff portion of the glove shell (See Mitchell, Fig. 2; pull tab (30) on cuff portion of glove (10)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the pull tab disclosed by Mitchell on the cuff portion of the modified hand covering system of Willows in order to provide a graspable attachment member by which a user may pull to assist in inserting the user’s hand into the glove (See Mitchell, Col. 4, lines 9-19).
Regarding claim 5, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen and Mitchell, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above) further teaches wherein the pull tab is rectangularly shaped (See Mitchell, Figs. 1-2; pull tab (30) is rectangularly shaped) and is coupled to the glove shell in a folded configuration, wherein a first end of the pull tab is coupled to an outer portion of the glove shell and a second end of the pull tab is coupled to an inner portion of the glove shell (See Mitchell, Figs. 1-2; in the modified hand covering system discussed above, pull tab (30) would be coupled in a folded configuration with a first end (32) attached to an outer portion of glove shell and a second end (34) attached to an inner portion of glove shell).
Regarding claim 6, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen and Mitchell, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above) further teaches wherein the pull tab is coupled to a middle section of the opened proximal end (See Mitchell, Figs. 1-2; in the modified hand covering system discussed above, pull tab (30) would be coupled to a middle section of the opened proximal end; Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0239553 to Kowalsky (hereinafter, “Kowalsky”).
Regarding claim 4, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the body is a unitary body within which the through-hole opening is formed (See Willows, Fig. 3; glove shell (10) has body forming an overall unit within which the through-hole is formed; glove shell (10) has a unitary body inasmuch as Applicant’s invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “unitary” and in light of the extent of Applicant’s disclosure; Examiner notes that the term "unitary" is very broad and merely means "of or relating to a unit" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); see objection to the written disclosure of the specification above for additional discussion).
That said, the modified hand covering system of Willows is silent to wherein the body includes reinforced stitching around the through hole opening.
However, Kowalsky, in a related hand covering art, is directed to a glove having one or more finger openings (See Kowalsky, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Kowalsky teaches wherein the body includes reinforced stitching around the through hole opening (See Kowalsky, Fig. 1; thumb aperture (38) includes reinforced strip of material (36) stitched in place; [0019]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the stitched aperture reinforcement around at least some of the through hole opening of the modified hand covering system of Willows in order to enhance strength and durability of the thumb aperture (See Kowalsky, [0019]).
Claims 7-10 (claims 8-10 as best can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0096001 to Emden et al. (hereinafter, “Emden”).
Regarding claim 7, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the glove shell is made of a blended material.
However, Emden, in a related fabric garment construction art, is directed to a fabric for an article of clothing such as a glove comprising a textile layer that is permeable to water vapor and impermeable to liquid water and also including a wicking layer (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; abstract; [0134]). More specifically, Emden teaches wherein the glove shell is made of a blended material (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove is a blended material including polyester and elastane; [0035], [0064]-[0065], [0134]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the glove shell of the modified hand covering system of Willows from the material disclosed by Emden for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, forming the glove shell apparatus from a material that is impermeable to liquid water while still being breathable and being permeable to water vapor (See Emden, [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen and Emden, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7 above) further teaches wherein the glove shell is made of a stretch-blend material (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove is a blended material including polyester and elastane; [0035], [0064]-[0065], [0134]) that, in combination with the trapezoidal cross-section, is configured to compress against the glove to reinforce contouring and minimize creases or slack (the stretch-blend material and trapezoidal cross-section of the modified hand covering system of Willows as discussed above is capable of compressing against an interior glove to reinforce contouring and minimizing creases or slack).
Regarding claim 9, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen and Emden, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7-8 above) further teaches wherein: the stretch-blend-material comprises one of polyester, nylon, microporous polymer, or thermoplastic polymer and elastane (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove is a blended material including polyester and elastane; [0035], [0064]-[0065], [0134]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Chen, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7-8 above) further teaches wherein the synthetic material weighs 100 to 300 grams per square meter (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove wicking layer, i.e., the polyester layer, can be 200 gsm; [0093]).
Claims 12 and 17-19, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows in view of Emden.
Regarding claim 12, Willows teaches a ski glove system comprising: a pair of ski glove shells comprising a first shell and a second shell (See Willows, Fig. 3; glove shell (10) are capable of being used while skiing and can be formed as a set of glove shells (10) for left and right hands; [0008]), wherein each ski glove shell of the pair of ski glove shells comprises: a body forming a non-thumb covering portion and a through hole opening (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; non-thumb covering portion (15) and through hole of glove shell (10)); the non-thumb covering portion configured to fit over the non-thumb portion of a glove (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; non-thumb covering portion (15) of glove shell (10) is capable of covering over a non-thumb portion of a hypothetical glove when the glove shell (10) is worn over the hypothetical glove; 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 non-thumb covering portion comprising a closed rounded distal end and an opened proximal end (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; cover (15) of glove shell (10) includes non-thumb covering portion having rounded distal end and opened proximal end), at least a portion of the non-thumb covering portion comprising a trapezoidal cross-section (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; non-thumb covering portion includes portion with trapezoidal cross-section (also seen in Figs. 11-18)); and the through hole opening formed in the body, between the closed rounded distal end and the opened proximal end, and configured to receive and expose in whole or in part the thumb portion of the glove and at least partially surrounding a corresponding base of the thumb portion of the glove, (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; through hole formed in thumb portion of body between ends and is capable of receiving and at least partially surrounding a hypothetical thumb portion, including a corresponding base, of a hypothetical glove; thumb portion of the hypothetical glove is capable of being exposed, in whole or in part, when glove shell (10) is fitted over the hypothetical glove), wherein the trapezoidal cross-section comprises a tapering width increasing from the through hole to the opened proximal end (See annotated Fig. 3 of Willows above; trapezoidal cross-section has tapering width increasing from through hole at thumb portion to opened proximal end (also seen in Figs. 11-18)), and wherein an initial portion of a ski trail map is printed on an outer surface of the first shell and a continuation portion of the ski trail map is printed on an outer surface of the second shell, such that the outer surfaces of the first and second shells collectively depict a continuous ski trail map (Examiner notes that the limitation is directed to non-functional descriptive material, i.e. printed matter; where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art; in the instant case, the recited printed portions of “a ski trail map” is purely ornamental and in no way functions with the glove system to create a new, unobvious product, and removing the printed matter/indicia would not change the functionality of the product; therefore, the limitation of the claim is not given patent weight; See MPEP 2111.05; Examiner further notes that even if the limitation were given patentable weight for the printed matter, the limitation would be very broad; without any specific details about the map recited in the claim (i.e., names of locations, measurements of the lines/angles, turns/slopes, etc.) a printed straight line would read upon the limitation).
That said, Willows is silent to wherein the cover is formed of a stretch-blend material that, in combination with the trapezoidal cross-section, is configured to compress against the globe to reinforce contouring and minimize creases or slack.
However, Emden, in a related fabric garment construction art, is directed to a fabric for an article of clothing such as a glove comprising a textile layer that is permeable to water vapor and impermeable to liquid water and also including a wicking layer (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; abstract; [0134]). More specifically, Emden teaches wherein the cover is formed of a stretch-blend material (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove is a blended material including polyester and elastane; [0035], [0064]-[0065], [0134]) that, in combination with the trapezoidal cross-section, is configured to compress against the globe to reinforce contouring and minimize creases or slack (the stretch-blend material and trapezoidal cross-section of the modified hand covering system of Willows as discussed above is capable of compressing against an interior glove to reinforce contouring and minimizing creases or slack).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the glove shell of Willows from the material disclosed by Emden for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, forming the glove shell body from a material that is impermeable to liquid water while still being breathable and being permeable to water vapor (See Emden, [0031]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden, as discussed with respect to claim 12 above) further teaches wherein the cover is made of a blended material (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove is a blended material including polyester and elastane; [0035], [0064]-[0065], [0134]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden, as discussed with respect to claims 12 and 17 above) further teaches wherein the stretch-blend material in combination with the trapezoidal cross-section, is configured to compress against the glove to reinforce contouring and minimize creases or slack.
Regarding claim 19, the modified hand covering system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden, as discussed with respect to claims 12 and 17-18 above) further teaches wherein: the stretch-blend material comprises one of polyester, or nylon, wherein the synthetic material weighs 100 to 300 grams per square meter; and wherein the stretch-blend material is configured to provide three-dimensional stretching to approximately 50% of an unstretched dimension (See Emden, Figs. 1-2; fabric of glove is a blended material including polyester and elastane; [0035], [0064]-[0065], [0134]; fabric of glove wicking layer, i.e., the polyester layer, can be 200 gsm; [0093]; elastane is capable of providing three-dimensional stretching to approximately 50% of unstretched dimension).
Claims 13-16, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willows in view of Emden, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2016/0353817 to Andrews (hereinafter, “Andrews”).
Regarding claim 13, the modified ski glove system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden, as discussed with respect to claim 12 above) is silent to at least one pull tab that is coupled to a cuff portion of the cover.
However, Andrews, in a related glove art, is directed to an ambidextrous mitt (See Andres, Figs. 1-11; abstract). More specifically, Andrews teaches at least one pull tab that is coupled to a cuff portion of the cover (See Andrews, Figs. 9-11; mitt (2) includes two pull tabs (7) coupled to cuff portion of mitt).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the pull tabs disclosed by Andrews at the cuff portion of the modified ski glove system of Willows in order to provide structures for aiding a user with donning and doffing the glove shell from the user’s hand (See Andrews, [0014]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified ski glove system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden and Andrews, as discussed with respect to claims 12-13 above) further teaches wherein the at least one pull tab comprises a pair of pull tabs, each pull tab of the pair of pull tabs being coupled to the cover at locations along the cover that are symmetrically opposite from one another (See Andrews, Figs. 9-11; mitt (2) includes two pull tabs (7) coupled to cuff portion of mitt at portions symmetrically opposite to one another and would be similarly applied in the modified ski glove system of Willows discussed above).
Regarding claim 15, the modified ski glove system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden and Andrews, as discussed with respect to claims 12-14 above) further teaches wherein each pull tab of the pair of pull tabs comprises a loop (See Andrews, Figs. 9-11; each of pull tabs (7) comprise loops; [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified ski glove system of Willows (i.e., Willows in view of Emden and Andrews, as discussed with respect to claims 12-14 above) further teaches wherein each pull tab of the pair of pull tabs is configured to detachably couple to one another (See Andrews, Figs. 9-11; each of pull tabs (7) comprise rings at ends of pull tab loops that are capable of detachably coupling to each other via a hypothetical peg or hook; [0015]).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, filed January 8, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Willows does not disclose or suggest that the glove is intended or structurally configured to fit over another glove, Examiner directs Applicant to the current grounds of rejection of Willows in view of Chen discussed above. In the current grounds of rejection, Chen is noted for teaching an interior glove having an openable covering shell, such as the openable covering of Willows, positionable over the interior glove. Chen is relied upon for teaching the presence of a glove having a thumb portion and a non-thumb portion, while Willows is capable of being positioned over and selectively covering such an interior glove as claimed. Applicant has not stated how Willows would not be capable of covering or fitting over an interior glove structure as discussed in the current grounds of rejection.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Willows does not disclose or suggest a glove shell being a unitary body and a through hole being formed within the unitary body, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, Examiner notes that the term "unitary" is very broad and merely means "of or relating to a unit" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Absent any additional discussion of “unitary” in Applicant’s disclosure, the glove shell body of Willows forms an overall unit and is considered to have a unitary body inasmuch as Applicant’s invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Similarly, the through hole on the side of the glove shell of Willows is considered to be formed within the overall unit of the glove shell. Examiner further notes that Willows describes the thumb hole of the embodiment (10) as a hole, not a slit. That said, a slit, such as the slit discussed with respect to the embodiments of Figs. 55-57 of Willows, would still read on a through hole, as claimed.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the printed ski trail map of claim 12, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Examiner notes that the limitation is directed to non-functional descriptive material, i.e. printed matter. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In the instant case, the recited printed portions of “a ski trail map” is purely ornamental and in no way functions with the glove system to create a new, unobvious product, and removing the printed matter/indicia would not change the functionality of the product; therefore, the limitation of the claim is not given patent weight. See MPEP 2111.05. Examiner further notes that even if the limitation were given patentable weight for the printed matter, the limitation would be very broad. Without any specific details about the map recited in the claim (i.e., names of locations, measurements of the lines/angles, turns/slopes, etc.) a printed straight line could read upon the limitation
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732