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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/20205 has been entered.
Claims 1, 17, and 21 were amended. Claim 25-26 are newly added. Claims 3-4, 19-20, and 22-24 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 5-18, 21, and 25-26 have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 25 recites “to indicate to a wearing that the glove is compromised”. This appears to be an error of syntax. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 fails to further limit claim 17, which already requires a first texturing on the exterior surface along at least one crotch area. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-18, 21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicants newly amended claim language in both claims 1 and 17 recites “the glove is continuously curvilinear along the crotch area and free of an expansion zone”. This limitation is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The specification discloses that the crotch portions are arcuate (para 0007, 0004) or curved (para 0048) but does not provide support for being continuously curvilinear. The curved portion are provided with texture (0050) and would create a pattern of indentation (etching) that would not be linear along a surface. The specification provides no further definition of the term expansion zone. The phrase has been construed to mean and areas which can be expanded as asserted by applicant. The glove of the instant invention is taught be expandable (para 0040) and therefore does not support the language “free of an expansion zone” as newly presented.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-18, 21, and 25-26 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.
Applicant recites “the glove is […] free of an expansion zone. It is unclear how a rubber glove is capable of being free from expanding, as currently required. Appropriate clarification is required.
Applicant recites “continuously curvilinear” but also requires a texture pattern, it is unclear how the surface is capable of being continuously linear but also having an etching in the surface creating texture. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 and 17 recites the limitation "the” with respect to an exterior surface of a crotch area. An exterior surface of a crotch area has not been positively recited and is therefore lacking antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anstey (US 2020/0138131). The device of Anstey teaches,
With respect to claim 1, a glove comprising:
a wrist region (Figure 1, area opposite the finger region);
a palm region (Figure 2; para 0027) extending outwardly from the wrist region;
a plurality of digit regions (Figure 2; para0010) extending outwardly from the palm region;
a crotch area (121, 118) defined between each pair of adjacent digit regions of the plurality of digit regions (para 0036) ;
wherein the glove is continuously curvilinear, as best understood, along the crotch area (Figure 9)
a first texture(121) provided on the exterior surface (para 0038) of at least one crotch area of the glove(para 0026,para 0038) and;
wherein the glove has a second texture (smooth, Figure 10).
The device of Anstey does not provide a literal recitation of the remainder of the glove having a second texture that is different than the first texture or that then glove is free of an expansion zone.
The device of Anstey does provide a teaching that the zones may be omitted or removed as necessary (para 0032). Anstey also teaches that areas of the crotch portions may be free from the relief zones, therefore when omitted having areas that are continuously curvilinear as best understood (para 0032).
The removal of the zones would provide a glove that is free of an expansion zone as best understood. Further the removal of the zones, in areas that are not necessary, outside of the crotch areas would provide a second texture in the remainder of the glove.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the zones in the crotch area of the fingers only, as taught by Anstey, so that there is freedom of movement in the crotch areas of the glove.
With respect to claim 2, wherein the first texture is formed into a pattern (Figure 9).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the first texture on the at least one crotch area (121, 118) is provided on an exterior of an arcuate surface (curved surface between the digits (Figures 9and 10) extending between a first digit region and a second digit region of one pair of adjacent digit regions (Figures 9 and 10).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the first texture on the at least one crotch area (121., 118) 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. (Figure 10 shows the texture extends upwardly at least along a small portion of the digits, or digit regions and therefore meets the claim language as currently recited).
With respect to claim 7, wherein the first texture of the at least one crotch area (121, 118) extends at least partially onto an exterior of a front of the palm region. It is noted that the texture extends downwardly into an area covering at least a small portion of the palm region of the glove (Figure 9), and therefore meets the claim as currently recited.
With respect to claim 8,wherein the first texture of the at least one crotch area (121, 118 ) extends at least partially onto an exterior of a back of the palm region. It is noted that the texture extends downwardly into an area covering at least a small portion of the palm region of the glove (Figure 10), and therefore meets the claim as currently recited
With respect to claim 9, wherein the plurality of digit regions includes a thumb region, an index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region (Figures 9 and 10) and a little finger region; and wherein the at least one crotch area (118) comprises a first crotch area located between the thumb region and the index finger region (Figure 9).
With respect to claim 10, wherein the at least one crotch area includes a second crotch area located between the index finger region and the middle finger region (121) , and wherein each of the first crotch area and the second crotch area is textured with the first texture (Figures 9 and 10; figures 9 &10).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the at least one crotch area includes a third crotch area located between the middle finger region and the ring finger region (121) , and wherein each of the first crotch area, the second crotch area, and the third crotch area is textured with the first texture (121; figures 9-10).
With respect to claim 12, wherein the at least one crotch area includes a fourth crotch area (121) located between the ring finger region and the little finger region, and wherein each of the first crotch area, the second crotch area, the third crotch area, and the fourth crotch area is textured with the first texture (Figure 9-10)
With respect to claim 17, forming a glove having a wrist region, a palm region, and a plurality of digit regions (Figures 1, 2, 9, 10);
defining a crotch area (121, 118) between each pair of adjacent digit regions of the plurality of digit regions, wherein the glove is continuously curvilinear along the crotch area (figure 9)
; and texturing the exterior surface of at least one crotch area defined on the glove (para 0038) with a first texture (121);
And a glove having a smooth second texture (figure 10).
The device of Anstey does not provide a literal recitation of the remainder of the glove having a second texture that is different than the first texture or that then glove is free of an expansion zone.
The device of Anstey does provide a teaching that the zones may be omitted or removed as necessary (para 0032). Anstey also teaches that areas of the crotch portions may be free from the relief zones, therefore when omitted having areas that are continuously curvilinear as best understood (para 0032).
The removal of the zones would provide a glove that is free of an expansion zone as best understood. Further the removal of the zones, in areas that are not necessary, outside of the crotch areas would provide a second texture in the remainder of the glove.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the zones in the crotch area of the fingers only, as taught by Anstey, so that there is freedom of movement in the crotch areas of the glove.
With respect to claim 18, further comprising forming a pattern on an exterior surface of the glove along the at least one crotch area with the texturing with the first texture (para 0038).
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anstey in view of Baker et al. (US 2015/0128324).
The device of Anstey substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent to the digits being in a single plane or a thumb being in a different plane. The device of Baker et al. teaches,
With respect to claim 13, wherein the plurality of digit regions is aligned along a common plane (Figure 5a) and the glove is an ambidextrous glove. (para 0067). The glove meets the structure as recited, and is capable of being ambidextrous, as functionally recited; see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 14, wherein the plurality of digit regions includes a thumb region, an index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region, and a little finger region; and wherein the index finger region, middle finger region, ring finger region, and little finger region are aligned along a common plane (Figure 5e) and wherein the thumb region is in a different plane (figure 5e), and the glove is a hand-specific glove (para 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize either a ambidextrous glove with digits in a single plane, or a hand specific glove with a thumb in a separate plane, as this is standard and common types of glove wear well known in the art, and would allow versatility to fit the desired end use.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anstey in view of Robertson (US 2,266,716).
The device of Anstey substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a digit region having a fingertip region with a reduced circumference.
The device of Robertson teaches,
With respect to claim 15, wherein at least one digit region (13)of the plurality of digit regions includes a fingertip region which is of a reduced circumference (column 1, lines 45-50) relative to a remaining portion of the at least one digit region.
With respect to claim 16, wherein the remaining portion of the at least one digit region (13 ) further includes a transition portion (along the length of 13) which tapers in circumference moving in a direction away from the palm region and towards a tip of the at least one digit region (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the reduced circumference of the fingertip portions to improve tactility in the fingertip region (Column 1, lines 45-55).
Claim(s) 21, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anstey in view of Djie (US 2020/0229884). The device of Anstey substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to color.
The device of Djie teaches,
With respect to claim 21, wherein an exterior surface of the glove is of a first color (para 0036) and an interior surface of the glove is of a second color (para 0035).
With respect to claim 25, wherein the color of the interior surface of the glove is a cut indicator to indicate to a wearing that the glove is compromised. The language “is a cut indicator” is functional. The prior art teaches the claimed structure, the exterior surface is a different color than an interior surface and therefore would be the limitation of being a “cut indicator” as required by the claim, since the prior art would be capable of performing in the manner recited, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 26, forming an interior surface of the glove with a material of a first color (para 0035) and a forming an exterior surface of the glove with a material of a second color (para 0035).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the colors taught by Djie to let a user know when the glove is dirty/worn (para 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to the originally filed disclosure providing support for the limitations “the glove is continuously curvilinear along the crotch area and free of an expansion zone”. This limitation is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The specification discloses that the crotch portions are arcuate (para 0007, 0004) or curved (para 0048) but does not provide support for being continuously curvilinear. The curved portion are provided with texture (0050) and would create a pattern of indentation (etching) that would not be linear along a surface. There is also no support for the newly added language that requires that the glove is “free of an expansion zone”. As recited above, this limitation is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The specification provides no further definition of the term expansion zone. The phrase has been construed to mean and areas which can be expanded as asserted by applicant. The glove of the instant invention is taught be expandable (para 0040) and therefore does not support the language “free of an expansion zone” as newly presented.
The 112 2nd paragraph rejections with respect to the phrase “strongly contrast” have been obviated.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the glove being free of expansion zones and the crotch portions being continuously curvilinear, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection above. The device of Antsey does not show the areas of the zones being omitted but teaches that it would be obvious to do so as desired, see rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the device of Antsey has a different purpose, 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.
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.
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