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 .
Pro se Application
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
To assist with understanding the office action, the examiner has added notes in sections including explanations of parts and rationales. Additionally, please see the references cited in the rejection and in the conclusion for examples of claim construction.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of a lack of figure numbers. Each of the shown drawings of the glove should be labeled Figure #, i.e. “Figure 1” and “Figure 2”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Please note following section regarding content of specification. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Drawings contain reference elements 1 (referring to “hook tape” in the drawing) and 2 (referring to “polyester glove) in the drawing and there is no reference to these figures in the specification. When these reference elements are referred to in the drawings, they must be described in the specification. See MPEP 608.02, particularly MPEP 608.02(V).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified.
Claim 1 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 1 recites “the use of hook tape…” without reciting additional steps that detail the process of removing the lint, raising an issue of indefiniteness. The 35 USC 112 rejection on claim 1 can be overcome by implementing the following claim construction suggestions in the section below.
Please note the following suggestions in addressing claims 1 & 2
Regarding claim 1: “The use of hook tape to remove lint from dreadlocks.”
It is the interpretation of the examiner that, in reciting “The use of”, the applicant intents to recite the method of using the lint remover device. However, the recited language creates an issue of indefinite language under 112(b), as previously recited.
Consider instead, for claim 1:
1. A method for removing lint from dreadlocks comprising:
providing a lint removing glove having three fingers having hook tape on each fingertip;
a user placing the glove on the user’s hand; and
the user pressing and pulling the glove fingertips on the dreadlocks to remove said lint from the dreadlocks.
Regarding claim 2: “An object or device that uses a three fingered glove with hook tape on the fingertips of the glove, designed to remove lint from dreadlocks.”
It is the interpretation of the examiner that, in reciting, “An object or device” the applicant intents to recite the lint remover device. However, there is no distinction given regarding the differences between “an object” and a device”
It is the interpretation of the examiner that, in reciting, “designed to remove lint” the applicant intents to claim the function of the device. While this is understood, the functional purpose of a structure is given no patentable weight except when given further context in the specification.
Consider instead, for claim 2
2. A device for removing lint from dreadlocks comprising:
a three fingered glove having fingertips; and
hook tape disposed on said fingertips.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the limitation attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process.
The 35 USC 101 rejection on claim 1 can be overcome by implementing suggestions from 35 USC 112 claim rejections section above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter (US 20130055963 A1). Claim 2 is also rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103, see the 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Regarding claim 2, Salter discloses a device (element 100, fig. 1) for removing lint (para. [0023]; note, hooks are described as favorable for capturing loose hair, dirt, and debris, which would include lint) from dreadlocks (para. [0003]; note, device is for brushing hair and fur, which would include dreadlocks) comprising:
a three fingered glove (element 100, fig. 1; note, in both the original and proposed claim limitations, there are no requirement that the glove have only three fingers. Therefore, a glove having five fingers has at least three fingers, meaning that the reference anticipates the claimed invention) having fingertips (see annotated fig. 1; element 106, fig. 1; para. [0025]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
661
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
hook tape (element 106 & 108, fig. 4; para. [0018 & 25]; note, reference discloses using a substrate secured to the upper section of the glove (fingers/fingertips, as shown) with adhesive or adhesive tape) disposed on said fingertips (element 106, fig. 1; para. [0025]).
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.
Assuming arguendo, that the lint remover glove should only include three fingers, and therefore that five-finger glove of Salter does not explicitly teach the claim limitations, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Dixon (US 20160324289 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Salter discloses a device for removing debris from pet hair comprising:
a fingered glove having fingertips; and
hook tape disposed on said fingertips.as previously described.
Salter fails to teach the grooming glove only including three fingers.
Dixon teaches a colorant applicator and hair grooming glove. Further, Dixon teaches “the body of the gloves comprises a finger sheath for at least a pair of the users fingers” (claim 1, line 5-6). Dixon teaches that providing certain fingers with either partial or no covering (having a glove with fewer than five covered fingers) aids in operator maneuverability and dexterity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Haynes into the grooming brush of Salter to provide a three fingered lint remover glove. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the improvement in functionality of a lint remover glove with at least one exposed finger to improve operator dexterity.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter in view of Haynes (US 20140060563 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salter discloses a method for grooming pet hair comprising petting pet’s fur with a glove having hooks attached thereto. Salter teaches the benefit of hooked bristles “for capturing loose hair, dirt, and debris”. Salter also teaches the optional inclusion of sticks (element 112) for better retention of captured hair, dirt and debris.
Salter, however, fails to disclose a method for removing lint from dreadlocks comprising:
providing a lint removing glove having three fingers having hook tape on each fingertip;
a user placing the glove on the user’s hand; and
the user pressing and pulling the glove fingertips on the dreadlocks to remove said lint from the dreadlocks.
Haynes teaches a method for brushing hair comprising:
providing a hair brushing glove having fingers (claim 21, line 3; a hand cover having at least a thumb pocket) having bristles on each fingertip (claim 21, line 6-7; “a plurality of bristles fixedly attached to at least part of the palmer surface of the hand cover”);
a user placing the glove on the user’s hand (claim 21, line 10; “placing a hand brush on a hand”); and
the user pressing and pulling the glove fingertips on the hair to brush said hair (claim 21, line 11-12; “moving the hand brush from the crown of the head to the hair line, while maintaining contact with the hair”).
Haynes teaches a hair brushing glove and a method of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Haynes into the grooming brush of Salter to provide the claimed method of use. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, while Salter’s grooming glove is directed to use on pet hair, it could also be used to groom human hair, including dreadlocks. As previously described, Salter teaches the benefit of the hooks for capturing hair, dirt, and debris. One of ordinary skill would understand that the hooks would be useful for capturing lint as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Algabbani et al. (US 20240292917 A1) teaches a multi-purpose glove and various attachments, the glove having loop-type fastener material attached to the palm and fingers to facilitate fixing of the attachments.
Damm (US 5009195 A) teaches an animal grooming device and method comprising a sheet with a plurality of hook-shaped bristles disposed thereon, which is worn around the users hand like a mitt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEEGAN T MARTIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/KEEGAN T MARTIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723