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 .
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 1/27/2026, claim 1 is amended. Claims 27-28 are new. Claim 15 remains withdrawn. Claims 1-12, 14-16, 21, 23-28 are pending, and claims 1-12, 14, 16, 21, 23-28 are presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hull, Applicant argues that Hull does not teach the newly added limitations, namely regarding “a fingertip region extending between a tip of each of the plurality of digit regions and a location which will be adjacent to where a first knuckle of a person’s finger or thumb will be when the glove is worn”. In making this assertion, Applicant merely provided annotated figure outlining where Applicant believes the “fingertip region” of Hull should be defined (see Remarks, page 11) which is notably different than the fingertip region defined by the Examiner in the rejection, and asserts that the “fluted region” is within the Applicant-defined “fingertip region”, not in the “remaining portion” as claimed. In response, Examiner notes that the claim language as written is very broad, and Applicant has not provided sufficient reasoning to explain why the fingertip region as defined by the Examiner would not meet the limitations of the claim as written. In particular, Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Further, “where a first knuckle of a person’s finger or thumb will be when the glove is worn” is entirely dependent on the particular user, as different people have differently sized hands. Thus, the entire limitation “a fingertip region extending between a tip of each of the plurality of digit regions and a location which will be adjacent to where a first knuckle of a person’s finger or thumb will be when the glove is worn” is broad and does not preclude the fingertip regions as defined by the Examiner from reading on the claim as written. Applicant has not identified any specific deficiencies with the interpretation or region as defined by the Examiner, therefore Examiner maintains that the interpretation of Hull including the fingertip regions as presented in the rejection reads on the claim as written.
Applicant further argues that Hull teaches away from moving the gripping zone to be “within the remaining portion and positioned entirely below and separate from the fingertip region and positioned entirely above and separate from the palm region” because Hull describes the fluted regions as being located at least partially in “fingertip region 1708a”. Firstly, this argument appears to be directed to a modification that has not been made. The rejection has never proposed modifying the Hull reference to change the location of the fluted regions or move them to another location on the digit portion that was not directly taught by Hull. However, Examiner further notes that any references to a “fingertip region” in Hull are irrelevant to the rejection as the Examiner has not relied on Hull’s definition of a “fingertip region 1708a” to teach the claimed fingertip region. The fingertip region that is mapped to read on the claims is the one defined in the rejection, which is shown in the annotated figures provided with the rejection, and is entirely unrelated to any regions or zones that were defined in the Hull reference. Examiner maintains that Hull reads on the claimed limitations as written, including the newly added limitation “within the remaining portion and positioned entirely below and separate from the fingertip region and positioned entirely above and separate from the palm region” as described in the rejection below.
Regarding newly added claims 27 and 28, Applicant asserts that Hull does not teach the limitation that the “a length of the first and second stays are greater than a length of the fingertip region”. Applicant again relies on an annotated figure showing a different fingertip region (see Remarks, page 13) than the one presented in the rejection in making this assertion. In response, Examiner reiterates that Applicant has not specifically and clearly pointed out any particular deficiencies with the fingertip region as defined by the Examiner in the rejection, and maintains that the fingertip region as defined in the rejection reads on the amended claim 1 (as described in the Response above), and subsequently that Hull reads on the new claim 27 (which depends on claim 1) and new independent claim 28 as described in the rejection below.
Applicant asserts that the dependent claims 2-12, 14, 16, 21, 23-27 are allowable based on their dependency from independent claim 1; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. The rejections of the dependent claims are therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14, 16, 21, 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull (US 2019/0104784).
Regarding claim 1, Hull discloses: A glove (1717) comprising: a wrist region (1702); a palm region (1704) extending outwardly from the wrist region; a plurality of digit regions (1706, 1708, 1710, 1712, 1714) extending outwardly from the palm region; wherein each of the plurality of digit regions comprise: a fingertip region extending between a tip of each of the plurality of digit regions and a location which will be adjacent to where a first knuckle of a person’s finger or thumb will be when the glove is worn (see fingertip regions shown in annotated figure 29A and 29C below; Examiner notes that “a location which will be adjacent to where a first knuckle […] will be when the glove is worn” is a very broad limitation, as described in the response to arguments above, and the fingertip regions as shown in the figure below extend between a tip of the digit region and a location that is adjacent (close to) where a first knuckle would be when the glove is worn, therefore they are considered fingertip regions insofar as required by the claim as written); a remaining portion extending between the fingertip region and the palm region of the glove (see remaining portions in annotated figure 29A below); and an interior cavity defined by each of the plurality of digit regions; at least one gripping zone (see gripping zones shown in annotated figure 29A below; Examiner notes that although only the front of the glove is shown in the figure, the gripping zones includes the portion of the back of the glove that would be directly behind the portion of the front of the glove that is highlighted in the box) provided on at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions (see annotated figure 29A below); wherein the at least one gripping zone extends into the interior cavity (“the fluted region 1730 extends for a distance into the associated interior cavity 1708b (FIG. 29C)” paragraph 264; Examiner notes that the fluted region 1730 is located in the boxed region of the annotated figure 29A below; see annotated figure 29C below showing how the fluted region is within the at least one gripping zone); wherein the at least one gripping zone is adapted to frictionally engage a person's finger or thumb received within the interior cavity to assist in preventing movement of the glove (“fluted region 1730 may be particularly useful since the configuration narrows the fingertip region 1708a and therefore helps fingertip region 1708a to more effectively grip the user’s fingertip that is received therein” paragraph 264); wherein the at least one gripping zone is located within the remaining portion and positioned entirely below and separate from the fingertip region and positioned entirely above and separate from the palm region (see annotated figure 29A below); at least one crotch area defined between two adjacent digit regions of the plurality of digit regions (see figure 29A, there are crotch areas between each adjacent digit region).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
447
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The previously cited embodiment of Hull does not explicitly disclose: a texture provided on the at least one crotch area.
However, Hull also teaches an embodiment in which the entire glove is textured (see figure 25A; “the entire glove 1217 is textured” paragraph 233). Hull also teaches “the pattern and placement of textured regions may utilize any one of a variety of different texture patterns including but not limited to a sand pattern” (paragraph 275). Hull teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to texture the entire surface of the glove using a sand pattern, as taught by Hull, in order to “enhance the gripping ability of the user and reduce the tendency for objects to slip when being held by the user” (paragraph 128).
Regarding claim 2, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the texture of the at least one crotch area is provided on an exterior of an arcuate surface extending between opposed side surfaces of the two adjacent digit regions (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including an exterior of an arcuate surface extending between opposed side surfaces of the two adjacent digit regions).
Regarding claim 3, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the two adjacent digit regions includes a first digit region and a second digit region, wherein the texture of the at least one crotch area extends along part of an exterior of a side surface of the first digit region and part of an exterior of a side surface of the second digit region (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including part of an exterior of a side surface of the first digit region and part of an exterior of a side surface of the second digit region).
Regarding claim 4, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the texture of the at least one crotch area extends at least partially onto an exterior of a front of the palm region (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including the first and second crotch areas).
Regarding claim 5, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the texture of the at least one crotch area extends at least partially onto an exterior of a back of the palm region (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including the first and second crotch areas).
Regarding claim 6, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the texture is provided on the at least one crotch area through a micro-etching process (Examiner notes that this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113). As modified, the texture is a sand pattern. Applicant states that “the micro-etching creates a sand pattern texture” in paragraph 261 of the instant application. As the modified Hull teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written).
Regarding claim 7, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of digit regions includes a thumb region (1706), an index finger region (1708), a middle finger region (1710), a ring finger region (1712), and a little finger region (1714); and wherein the at least one crotch area comprises a first crotch area located between the thumb region and the index finger region (see figure 29A, there is a first crotch area between the thumb and index finger regions).
Regarding claim 8, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 7, wherein the at least one crotch area includes a second crotch area located between the index finger region and the middle finger region (see figure 29A, there is a second crotch area between the index finger and middle finger regions), and wherein each of the first crotch area and the second crotch area is textured (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including the first and second crotch areas).
Regarding claim 9, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 8, wherein the at least one crotch area includes a third crotch area located between the middle finger region (see figure 29A, there is a second crotch area between the middle finger and ring finger regions) and the ring finger region, and wherein each of the first crotch area, the second crotch area, and the third crotch area is textured (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including the first, second, and third crotch areas).
Regarding claim 10, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 9, wherein the at least one crotch area includes a fourth crotch area located between the ring finger region and the little finger region, (see figure 29A, there is a fourth crotch area between the ring finger and little finger regions) and wherein each of the first crotch area, the second crotch area, the third crotch area, and the fourth crotch area is textured (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including the first, second, third, and fourth crotch areas).
Regarding claim 11, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gripping zone is oriented substantially parallel to an imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region, wherein the imaginary longitudinal axis extends from a tip of the at least one digit region to the palm region (see figure 29A annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the gripping zone).
Regarding claim 12, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gripping zone comprises a concave indentation (fluted region 1730; see figure 29C showing the concave indentation) formed in the at least one digit region, and the concave indentation is of a length extending parallel to the imaginary longitudinal axis and extends for a circumferential distance along a circumference of the at least one digit region, where the circumference is orthogonal to the imaginary longitudinal axis (see figure 29B showing the length and circumferential distance of the fluted region 1730); and wherein the length of the concave indentation is greater than the circumferential distance (see figure 29B).
Regarding claim 14, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gripping zone is provided in one or both of a front and a back of the at least one digit region (as described in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, the gripping zone is defined as the region shown in the annotated figure 29A, and includes the circumferential portion of the glove designated by the box, therefore, the gripping zone is located in both the front and back of the digit region).
Regarding claim 16, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, further comprising an exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone, wherein the exterior surface is textured (as modified, the entire glove is textured, including the exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone).
Regarding claim 21, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the fingertip region of the at least one digit region comprises a reduced- circumference fingertip region (see figure 29A annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the fingertip regions each have a reduced circumference as the tip encloses the top of the finger, as shown by the annotated boxes).
Regarding claim 23, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the glove is an ambidextrous glove (“it should be understood that similar features as will be described hereafter may be readily incorporated into an ambidextrous glove” paragraph 262).
Regarding claim 24, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 16, wherein the texture of the exterior surface of the at least one gripping zone is applied through micro-etching (Examiner notes that this limitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art (see MPEP § 2113). As modified, the texture is a sand pattern. Applicant states that “the micro-etching creates a sand pattern texture” in paragraph 261 of the instant application. As the modified Hull teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written).
Regarding claim 25, the previously relied upon embodiment of Hull as modified does not explicitly disclose: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one gripping zone comprises a first stay and a second stay.
However, Hull further teaches, “FIG. 29D shows an alternative embodiment in which a second fluted region 1730 is defined in fingertip region 1708a. The second fluted region 1730 is oriented substantially parallel to longitudinal axis “Y”. The two fingertip regions 1730 may be opposed to each other. Furthermore, the two fingertip regions may be formed in the opposed side surfaces of fingertip region 1708a” (paragraph 266). Hull teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a second fluted region to the digit opposite the first fluted region, as taught by Hull, in order to further improve the grip between the glove and the user’s finger. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). See annotated figure 29D below showing how the second fluted region (second stay) is still within the at least one gripping zone and remote from the fingertip region as previously defined.
PNG
media_image3.png
453
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the at least one digit region has a circumference and the at least one gripping zone does not extend circumferentially around the entire circumference (as can be seen in the annotated figure 29A provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, the at least one gripping zone does not include the areas on the digit that are not included in the boxes, therefore the at least one gripping zone does not extend circumferentially around the entire circumference).
Regarding claim 27, Hull as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 25, wherein a length of each of the first and second stays are greater than a length of the fingertip region (see annotated figure 29D provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 25 above, showing that a length of each of the first and second stays are greater than a length of the fingertip region).
Regarding claim 28, Hull discloses: A glove (1717) comprising: a wrist region (1702); a palm region (1704) extending outwardly from the wrist region; a plurality of digit regions (1706, 1708, 1710, 1712, 1714) extending outwardly from the palm region; wherein each of the plurality of digit regions includes a fingertip region extending between at a tip of each of the plurality of digit regions and a location which will be adjacent to where a first knuckle of a person's finger or thumb will be when the glove is worn (see fingertip regions shown in annotated figure 29A and 29C below; Examiner notes that “a location which will be adjacent to where a first knuckle […] will be when the glove is worn” is a very broad limitation, as described in the response to arguments above, and the fingertip regions as shown in the figure below extend between a tip of the digit region and a location that is adjacent (close to) where a first knuckle would be when the glove is worn, therefore they are considered fingertip regions insofar as required by the claim as written); a first stay (1730) provided on at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions; wherein the first stay is oriented substantially parallel to an imaginary longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region, wherein the imaginary longitudinal axis extends from a tip of the at least one digit region to the palm region (see figure 29B showing the orientation of the fluted region 1730 being substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis extending from a tip of the digit region to the palm region); wherein a length of the first stay is greater than a length of the fingertip region (see annotated figure 29C below, showing that a length (in the vertical direction, in this case) of the first stay is greater than a length of the fingertip region); wherein the first stay is configured to frictionally engage a person's finger or thumb received within an interior cavity defined by the at least one digit region (“fluted region 1730 may be particularly useful since the configuration narrows the fingertip region 1708a and therefore helps fingertip region 1708a to more effectively grip the user’s fingertip that is received therein” paragraph 264); at least one crotch area defined between two adjacent digit regions of the plurality of digit regions (see figure 29A, there are crotch areas between each adjacent digit region).
PNG
media_image4.png
802
314
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
447
445
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The previously relied upon embodiment of Hull does not explicitly disclose: a second stay provided on the at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions; wherein the a length of the second stay is greater than a length of the fingertip region; wherein the second stay is configured to frictionally engage a person’s finger or thumb received within an interior cavity defined by the at least one digit region; wherein the second stay is arranged opposite the first stay relative to the imaginary longitudinal axis.
However, Hull further teaches, “FIG. 29D shows an alternative embodiment in which a second fluted region 1730 is defined in fingertip region 1708a. The second fluted region 1730 is oriented substantially parallel to longitudinal axis “Y”. The two fingertip regions 1730 may be opposed to each other. Furthermore, the two fingertip regions may be formed in the opposed side surfaces of fingertip region 1708a” (paragraph 266). Hull teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a second fluted region to the digit opposite the first fluted region, as taught by Hull, in order to further improve the grip between the glove and the user’s finger. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). See annotated figure 29D below showing the second fluted region (second stay). Examiner notes that the second fluted region (second stay) is the same length as the first stay and therefore is also greater in length than a length of the fingertip region, and the second fluted region (second stay) is configured to frictionally engage a person’s finger or thumb received within an interior cavity defined by the at least one digit region due to its concave indented shape, as shown in figure 29D below.
PNG
media_image6.png
453
441
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The previously cited embodiment of Hull does not explicitly disclose: a texture provided on the at least one crotch area.
However, Hull also teaches an embodiment in which the entire glove is textured (see figure 25A; “the entire glove 1217 is textured” paragraph 233). Hull also teaches “the pattern and placement of textured regions may utilize any one of a variety of different texture patterns including but not limited to a sand pattern” (paragraph 275). Hull teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to texture the entire surface of the glove using a sand pattern, as taught by Hull, in order to “enhance the gripping ability of the user and reduce the tendency for objects to slip when being held by the user” (paragraph 128).
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights