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
The amendment filed on 10/27/2025 has been fully considered. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 12, 13 and 17 are withdrawn. Claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-11, 14-16 have been examined on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hammer et al. (US 2019/0192955). The device of Hammer et al. teaches,
With respect to claim 1, A protective sports equipment for protecting a body part of a wearer, comprising:
an inner layer (interior side of 240; figure 6);
and a suspended panel (220) located inwardly of the inner layer and connected thereto at first (222) and second locations (224), the suspended panel being tensioned and defining a space with the inner layer, the space being located between the first and second locations and between the suspended panel and the inner layer (Figure 7, and 12);
the suspension panel (220) having a tension (when worn, figure 7, figure 12), configured o defined a flow passage (area of space between the panel and the interior surface of 240), capable for use to allows passage of air in the space between the suspended panel and the inner layer when the wearer is wearing the protective sports equipment (Figure 7).
With respect to claim 2, further comprising a first portion (206) adapted to cover a joint of the body part of the wearer, and a second portion (215) extending away from the first portion (Figure 6), the suspended panel (220) being located in the second portion.
With respect to claim 4, the suspended panel (220) extends between a first end of the protective sports equipment and a second end of the protective sports equipment (Figure 6), the suspended panel being deformable by a first amount in a first direction defined generally between the first end and the second end of the protective sports equipment (para 0006), and is further deformable by a second amount in a second direction generally transverse to the first direction, the first amount being greater than the second amount (para 0049; all material is elastic to a least a degree Hooke’s Law, therefore the panel would have some degree of deformation in the vertical direction; and is taught be elastic along a length)
With respect to claim 5, wherein one of the first end and the second end of the protective sports equipment (near 242 and 244) corresponds to one of the first and second locations where the suspended panel is connected (222, 224) to the inner layer (Figure 6).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the suspended panel (220) is shorter than the inner layer (interior surface of 240) in at least one of the first and second directions (Figure 6).
With respect to claim 9, wherein the suspended panel extends over a majority of the inner layer (Figure 6).
With respect to claim 10, further comprising an outer shell (215) defining at least one opening, the inner layer (240) being connected to and disposed inwardly from the outer shell, and the at least one opening of the outer shell (space between elements 215) being in fluid communication with the space to provide airflow into the space (Figure 7).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the outer shell includes first and second protective pads (215, figure 7), and wherein the at least one opening is defined between the first and second protective pads (Figure 7).
With respect to claim 14, wherein the protective sports equipment is an ice hockey glove (the glove of Hammer et al. can be used to play ice hockey and therefore meets the claim language as currently recited, see MPEP 2115), the ice hockey glove having a palm portion and a dorsal portion, the suspended panel located between the palm portion (near 206, figure 6) and the dorsal portion (Figure 7) and configured to provide the space (220 is not connected at the surface and therefore has a space) between the inner layer of the ice hockey glove and the palm portion of the ice hockey glove (Figures 7 and 8).
With respect to claim 15, wherein the ice hockey glove includes protective pads (see pads near 202, 204) on the dorsal portion (Figure 7), and an opening is defined between adjacent protective pads, the opening being in fluid communication with the space (Figure 7 and 8).
With respect to claim 16, wherein the suspended panel (220) is shorter than the inner layer (inner surface 240) in at least one of a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction (Figure 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the device of Hammer has a different intended use, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that the device of Hammer does not define a space with the inner layer when the glove is being worn. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the glove being worn) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims as currently recited do not require a glove, or that the glove is worn. The claim requires a flow passage for air when the sports equipment is worn. Figure 7, shows the sports equipment being worn, in as much as required by the claim as currently presented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
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 RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights