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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 1/22/2026, claims 1, 4, and 17 are amended. Claims 6, 17-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-16 are presented for examination on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previously presented 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, Applicant first argues that Bevier does not teach the amended limitation “the second texture and the first texture have different structural configurations from one another in every orientation”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument focuses on the shape of the grooves in Bevier being the same, but oriented differently, arguing that this does not constitute a “different structural configuration in every orientation”. In response, Examiner notes that the rejection highlighted two reasons why the first texture and second texture were considered to have different structural configurations. First, if the grooves are oriented in different directions on the fingers than on the palm, they have a different texture and configuration in at least one orientation, and second, the existence of smooth areas between the areas with grooves on each of the digit regions also creates an overall structural configuration and texture on the digit regions that is different than the configuration and texture on the palm region. Applicant’s amendment has only overcome the first explanation, not the second, and Applicant has not specifically addressed the second explanation given by the Examiner in the argument. Examiner therefore maintains that the presence of the smooth areas between the areas with grooves on each of the digit regions creates an overall structural configuration of texture on the digit regions (i.e., three regions of grooved areas separated by two smooth regions) than the configuration on the palm region which has a single region of grooves that is uninterrupted, and thus maintains that Bevier reads on that limitation as written.
Applicant’s argument regarding Bevier not teaching a nitrile material has been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has introduced new limitations that have altered the scope of the claim, new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding the previously presented 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 4, Applicant argues that Bevier fails to teach “wherein the first texture is a sandpaper texture and the second texture is a diamond pattern produced on a front surface of the one or more digit regions” as required by amended claim 4 (due to the change in dependency, claim 4 now depends from and requires the limitations of claim 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument again focuses on only the shape of the grooves (“the textures taught by Bevier teach only a single pattern with different orientations on the palm and finger stalls” (Remarks, page 10), and has not addressed the second explanation for different structural configurations presented by the Examiner in the rejection, as explained in regards to claim 1 in the response to arguments above. Examiner maintains that Bevier teaches different structural configurations for the same reasons as discussed in regards to claim 1 above.
Applicant further argues that “there would be no motivation to modify Bevier in the manner stated by the Examiner because doing so would render the Bevier device inoperable for its intended purpose” (Remarks, page 12), but provides no explanation why the modification proposed by the Examiner (changing the pattern of the grooves to a diamond pattern) would render the Bevier device inoperable for its intended purpose. This argument is further found unpersuasive because the diamond pattern was expressly and explicitly taught by the Bevier reference, as described in paragraph 48, which was cited in the rejection. Therefore it is clear that Bevier would still be operable for its intended purpose if the groove pattern is changed to diamonds, as Bevier had already contemplated the use of a diamond pattern.
Applicant further argues that Bevier is non-analogous art because it is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention, as it teaches a glove intended for use by athletes while the instant invention teaches a glove intended for use in industrial applications such as meat packing. In response, Examiner notes that there are two tests for establishing obviousness, as described in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I): “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” As stated in the rejection, Bevier teaches art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, that field being gloves, and particularly textured gloves. As stated in the MPEP section cited above, the prior art reference does not need to address the same problem as the instant application in order to be in the same field of endeavor, nor does it need to have the same intended use. Applicant has not made any specific arguments alleging that Bevier is not in the same field of endeavor as the instant application; therefore, Examiner maintains that Bevier teaches analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant application.
Applicant argues “the assertation that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the diamond pattern from Bevier’s Figure 9A with the embodiment in Figure 1A is unsupported” (Remarks, page 13). In response, Examiner submits that such a modification was not proposed by the Examiner in the rejection. Rather, the rejection modified all of the sinusoidal siped grooves to instead have a diamond pattern as shown in figure 9A. As stated in the rejection, “even if all of the siped groove areas are changed to diamond patterns, the first texture and second texture are still different as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, […] due to the presence of smooth areas between regions with grooves on the finger regions creating an overall different texture on the finger regions than on the palm” (Final rejection mailed 11/17/2025, page 17, emphasis added). Therefore, the argument is not commensurate with the rejection.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims 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 dependent claims remain rejected.
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) 1-5, 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevier (US 2009/0139010) in view of Smalls (US 2011/0030121).
Regarding claim 1, Bevier discloses: A glove comprising: a wrist region (see annotated figure 1A below); a palm region extending outwardly from the wrist region (see annotated figure 1A below); a plurality of digit regions extending outwardly from the palm region (see annotated figure 1A below); a first texture provided on the palm region (see annotated figure 1A below; there is a texture created by grooves 140, see paragraph 44); and a second texture provided on one or more digit regions of the plurality of digit regions (see annotated figure 1A below; there is an overall texture on each digit region that is created by grooves 140 and the smooth areas between the areas with grooves, see paragraph 44), wherein the second texture and the first texture have different structural configurations from one another in every orientation (the existence of the smooth areas between the areas with grooves on each of the digit regions also creates an overall structural configuration and texture on the digit regions that is different than the structural configuration and texture on the palm region); and wherein the glove is a single layer glove (“this second layer 125 may be formed either integrally with or alternatively adhered to the base layer 120 in a known manner” paragraph 37; Examiner notes that although the reference uses the terms “layers” when referring to the structure of the glove, the “second layer” is described as being formed integrally with the “base layer” as described in the previous citation, therefore they are understood to together constitute a single layer in the final product).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bevier does not explicitly disclose: the glove is made of nitrile.
However, Smalls teaches a textured glove made of nitrile (glove 1; “The purpose of the glove 1 is to provide a variety of gloves with a plurality of raised and/or textured sections on the exterior surface of the glove 1” paragraph 41; see figure 1; “nitrile gloves are made of synthetic latex and contain no latex proteins, of which some persons are allergic to” paragraph 43).
Smalls teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of textured 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 make the gripping surface of the glove of Bevier out of nitrile, as taught by Smalls, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, the use of nitrile is advantageous because it “contains no latex proteins, of which some persons are allergic to” (Smalls, paragraph 43), so it can be used and worn safely by a wider group of people without risking adverse effects such as an allergic reaction.
Regarding claim 2, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the first texture is a sandpaper texture (Bevier, the wavy pattern shown in figure is a “sandpaper” texture as defined by Applicant, stated in the Remarks of 8/19/2025 on page 8 which defined the term as “’Sandpaper’ texture of the glove means that the glove has a rough surface texture”; the surface texture of the glove of Bevier is considered to be “rough” because it has an uneven surface).
Regarding claim 3, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the first texture is micro-etched into a front surface of the palm region (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) In the instant case, paragraph 50 of Bevier states “the siping grooves may be almost microscopic” and paragraph 68 of Bevier states “water jet cutting or chemical etching are alternative possible methods of manufacture (e.g., for forming the siping or other grooved areas)” which indicates that their size can be on the micro-scale and they can be formed by an etching process and therefore the prior art is understood to read on the claim).
Regarding claim 4, the embodiment shown in figure 1A of Bevier does not explicitly disclose: The glove according to claim 2, wherein the second texture is a diamond pattern produced on a front surface of the one or more digit regions.
However, Bevier further discloses another embodiment wherein the texture is a diamond pattern (see figure 9A; “FIG. 9A illustrates another pattern in which the siping grooves 140 are formed by a plurality of diamond-shaped elements” paragraph 48).
Bevier teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of textured 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 make all of the siping grooves on the embodiment shown in figure 1A with a diamond pattern as shown in figure 9A because “the diamond shaped structure of the raised areas provides good gripping action in several directions because raised edges are provided in various different directions, and therefore, a perpendicular raised edge is likely available to engage the ball (or other object) irrespective of the direction of contact between the glove and the ball (or any other object)” (paragraph 48), so the diamond pattern has particularly improved grip. Further, Bevier contemplated changing the patterns in paragraph 47. Examiner notes that even if all of the wavy patterned areas are changed to have diamond patterns instead, the first texture and second texture are still different as described the rejection of claim 1 above, due to the presence of smooth areas between regions with grooves on the finger regions creating an overall different texture on the finger regions than on the palm. Additionally, Examiner notes the modification described above to change the pattern still meets the limitation of claim 2 requiring that the first texture has a “sandpaper texture”, because the diamond patterned grooves still have a “sandpaper” texture as defined by Applicant, stated in the Remarks of 8/19/2025 on page 8 which defined the term as “’Sandpaper’ texture of the glove means that the glove has a rough surface texture”, and the surface texture of the glove of Bevier is considered to be “rough” because it has an uneven surface even when the grooves are in a diamond pattern.
Regarding claim 5, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, further comprising a texture-free zone located between the first texture provided on the palm region and the second texture provided on the one or more digit regions (see figure 1A of Bevier annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
673
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the first texture is provided on a front surface of the palm region and extends between an upper boundary on the palm region to a lower boundary on the palm region (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103) rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the upper boundary is spaced a distance downwardly away from an imaginary line passing through a plurality of digit crotches extending between adjacent digit regions (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 8, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 7, wherein the upper boundary is oriented generally orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the wrist region (Bevier, the upper boundary is generally orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the wrist region even though it possesses some curvature insofar as Applicant’s upper boundary is generally orthogonal, as both the prior art and the instant application have upper boundaries that follow the curvature of the imaginary line that crosses through the digit crotches which inherently has some curvature due to how the structure of the glove is configured to follow the anatomy of a hand) and extends from proximate a first side of the front surface of the palm region to proximate a second side of the front surface of the palm region (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 9, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 7, further comprising a zone extending between the imaginary line and the upper boundary, and wherein the zone is free of texture and is smooth (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 above showing the texture free zone).
Regarding claim 10, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 7, wherein the lower boundary is located generally where the palm region of the glove transitions to the wrist region of the glove (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 as well as claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 10, wherein the plurality of digit regions includes a thumb region (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the thumb region), and wherein the lower boundary originates at a base of the thumb region where the thumb region transitions into the wrist region, and wherein the lower boundary is oriented transverse to a longitudinal axis of the wrist region (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 showing the lower boundary being located at the base of the thumb region (compare to annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1) and it is transverse to a longitudinal axis of the wrist region).
Regarding claim 12, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 7, wherein the front surface of the palm region has a first side and a second side (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier below showing the first and second side), wherein the upper boundary extends between the first side and the second side, and wherein the lower boundary originates proximate the second side and terminates before reaching the first side (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier below showing lower boundary originating proximate the second side and terminating before reaching the first side).
PNG
media_image3.png
673
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 12, further comprising an arcuate boundary extending between an end portion of the lower boundary and the first side, and wherein first texture is provided on the palm region between the upper boundary, the lower boundary, the first side, and the arcuate boundary (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 above showing the arcuate boundary and how the first texture is provided within the claimed boundaries).
Regarding claim 14, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 13, wherein the front surface of the palm region which includes the first texture tapers in width between the first side of the palm region and the arcuate boundary to a minimum width along the lower boundary (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier below showing the tapering and the minimum width that occurs along the lower boundary).
PNG
media_image4.png
665
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of digit regions comprises a thumb region, an index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region, and a little finger region (see annotated figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 6 above showing the different finger regions); and wherein a digit crotch extends between adjacent digit regions of the plurality of digit regions (Bevier, see figure 1A; a digit crotch exists between each adjacent digit region), and wherein the second texture provided on a front surface of a respective digit region extends from a tip of the respective digit region to proximate the digit crotch (see figure 1A of Bevier provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above; the overall texture of each of the front surfaces of the digit regions including the smooth areas constitutes the second texture, so the second texture extends from a tip of each digit region to the area around the digit crotch).
Regarding claim 16, Bevier as modified discloses: The glove according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of gripping zones provided in a rear surface of at least one of the plurality of digit regions (Bevier, the rear surface of each of the digit regions can be considered to have a plurality of “gripping zones”, for instance a zone corresponding to the areas where each knuckle may be located within the glove when worn by a user; those areas can be considered “gripping zones” insofar as defined by the claims because they are areas that would be bent when a user closes their fist to grip something; Examiner notes that no additional structure has been recited in this claim, only the existence of “zones”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pimentel de Oliveira (US 2015/0143610) teaches a glove with different shapes/patterns of gripping features on the fingers of the glove in comparison to the palm of the glove.
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
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732