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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, and 25 is/are amended. Claims 16-20 remain canceled. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are presented for examination on the merits for Invention I and Species a (Figs. 1-11B).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “wherein each of the first gripping zone and the second gripping zone” should be amended to read “wherein each of the first gripping region and the second gripping region”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-15 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Lorenzo et al. (US 2008/0222774 A1), in view of Robert et al. (US 2020/0170320 A1), and in further view of Champagne (US 2014/0208481 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Di Lorenzo discloses a glove (10; Fig. 1) assembly comprising:
a first glove (14) and a second glove (15);
wherein each of the first glove and the second glove includes a plurality of digit regions (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of digit regions on 14 and 15 being the regions that envelop the wearer’s fingers, respectively);
wherein the first glove defines an interior cavity adapted to receive a hand of a person therein (Fig. 1 shows an interior cavity of 14 as the cavity of 14 that receives a wearer’s hand 12);
wherein the second glove defines an interior cavity (Fig. 1 shows an interior of 15 as the cavity that receives both 14 and 12);
wherein the first glove is received within the interior cavity of the second glove (Fig. 1; paras. 38-39).
While Di Lorenzo discloses the first and second gloves are made of any material, and including any suitable non-porous material (paras. 31 & 38), Di Lorenzo does not directly disclose wherein the first glove and the second glove are both made of a same material.
However, Robert teaches a first glove (100) and a second glove (200; para. 40, where 200 is another 100 glove) are both made of a same material (paras. 37-38, where 100 and 200 are made of nitrile; para. 40, where 200 is another 100 glove, and therefore, 200 is also made of nitrile like 100 is made of nitrile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second glove of Di Lorenzo to be made of a same material, as taught by Robert, in order to improve the comfort for the wearer. Further, 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Di Lorenzo and Robert do not directly disclose a first gripping region provided on a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions of the first glove; a second gripping region provided on a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions of the second glove; wherein the second gripping region is complementary to the first gripping region; wherein the first gripping region is adapted to frictionally engage the hand of the person received within the interior cavity to assist in preventing movement of the glove; and wherein the first gripping region nests within the second gripping region when the first glove is received within the interior cavity of the second glove.
However, Champagne teaches a glove (800; Fig. 8; para. 98 discloses the rib pattern of Fig. 6E is included in at least Fig. 8) with a gripping region provided on a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions of the glove (Fig. 8, where the view/surface shown of 800 with region containing topmost 802 on the pointer finger potion is “a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second glove of Di Lorenzo to each include a gripping region provided on a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions, as taught by Champagne, in order to provide easier flexing (para. 101) and articulation of the wearer’s fingers. When in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose a first gripping region provided on a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions of the first glove; a second gripping region provided on a back of at least one digit region of the plurality of digit regions of the second glove; wherein the second gripping region is complementary to the first gripping region; wherein the first gripping region is adapted to frictionally engage the hand of the person received within the interior cavity to assist in preventing movement of the glove; and wherein the first gripping region nests within the second gripping region when the first glove is received within the interior cavity of the second glove.
Regarding claim 2, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first gripping region comprises a plurality of undulations formed on the back surface of the one or more digit regions of the first glove (of Di Lorenzo: first glove 14; as evidenced by Champagne: Fig. 8 & para. 101, where topmost 802 on the pointer finger portion of 800 are ribs), and the second gripping regions comprises a plurality of undulations formed on the back surface of the one or more digit regions of the second glove (of Di Lorenzo: second glove 15; as evidenced by Champagne: Fig. 8 & para. 101, where topmost 802 on the pointer finger portion of 800 are ribs).
Regarding claim 3, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of undulations in each of the first glove and the second glove comprises a plurality of alternating peaks and valleys (of Di Lorenzo: on glove 14 and 15; as evidenced by Champagne: para. 98 discloses the rib pattern 602/802 of Fig. 6E is included in Figs. 6-11, and therefore, Fig. 8 incorporates the pattern as disclosed in Fig. 6E; see annotated Fig. 6E below).
PNG
media_image1.png
227
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 3, wherein the peaks of the plurality of undulations in the first glove nest with the peaks of the plurality of undulations in the second glove (of Champagne as evidenced by Di Lorenzo: Fig. 1 once assembled, the entire glove 14 nests in glove 15, and therefore, the peaks of the plurality of undulations in the first glove nest with the peaks of the plurality of undulations in the second glove) and wherein the valleys of the plurality of undulations in the first glove nest with the valleys of the plurality of undulations in the second glove (of Champagne as evidenced by Di Lorenzo: Fig. 1 once assembled, the entire glove 14 nests in glove 15, and therefore, the valleys of the plurality of undulations in the first glove nest with the valleys of the plurality of undulations in the second glove).
Regarding claim 5, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1, wherein each of the first gripping region and the second gripping region originates a distance inwardly from a tip of a digit region of a respective one of the first glove and the second glove (of Di Lorenzo: 14 & 15; as evidenced by Champagne: see annotated Fig. 8 below, and a digit region is the region above the topmost 802; when in combination, both layers 14 and 15 of Di Lorenzo include Champagne’s distance inwardly from a top of a digit region).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
421
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first glove and the second glove each define at least one digit crotch and at least two digit regions (of Di Lorenzo: see at least one digit crotch and two digit regions of 14 & 15 in annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein each of the first gripping zone and the second gripping zone terminates a distance outwardly from the at least one digit crotch of the first glove and the second glove, and wherein the at least one digit crotch extends between two adjacent digit regions of the first glove and the second glove (of Di Lorenzo and as evidenced by Champagne: see annotated Fig. 8 below, where Champagne’s topmost 802 terminates at a distance outwardly from at least one digit crotch).
PNG
media_image3.png
359
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
749
377
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1. Di Lorenzo further discloses the glove assembly further comprising: a third glove and a fourth glove configured to be worn on an opposite hand of the person from the hand upon which the first glove and the second glove are worn (para. 29, “While the exemplary glove assembly 10 is illustrated with the left hand and accommodating the same, it will be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art that the inventive features of the present invention are equally applicable to a glove assembly that can accommodate a right hand.”; as such, the right hand glove assembly includes the third glove and the fourth glove); and wherein the third glove and fourth glove are identical to one another and are configured as mirror images of the first glove and the second glove (para. 29).
Regarding claim 8, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1. Di Lorenzo further discloses wherein each of the first glove and the second glove includes: a wrist region (Fig. 1 shows 70 as the wrist region of 15; Fig. 1, where 70 superimposes 16 is the wrist region of 14); a palm region extending outwardly from the wrist region (Fig. 1: the palm region on 15 is between 70 and the digit crotches, and the palm region on 14 and from where 70 superimposes 16 is the wrist region of 14 to the digit crotches, the digit crotches is/are in similar regions as annotated in Fig. 1 above in the rejection of claim 6-between digit regions); wherein the plurality of digit regions extend outwardly from a portion of the palm region opposite the wrist region (Fig. 1); and wherein the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions together defines the interior cavity of a respective one of the first glove and the second glove (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 8. Di Lorenzo does not directly disclose wherein the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions are fabricated from a glove material which is resistant to one or more of opioids, substances mixed with opioids, bodily fluids, and toxic or corrosive chemicals.
However, Robert teaches wherein the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions are fabricated from a glove material which is resistant to one or more of opioids, substances mixed with opioids, bodily fluids, and toxic or corrosive chemicals (para. 48, where the glove is made of nitrile rubbers; Examiner submits para. 36 of Applicant’s specification discloses nitrile as a material for glove assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions of Di Lorenzo to be fabricated from a material resistant to one or more of opioids, substances mixed with opioids, bodily fluids, and toxic or corrosive chemicals, as taught by Robert, in order to improve the protection for the wearer. Further, 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. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 8. Di Lorenzo does not directly disclose wherein the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions are fabricated such that the interior surface of each of the first glove and the second glove is of a first color and the exterior surface of each of the first glove and the second glove is of a second color, and the first color contrasts with the second color.
However, Robert teaches wherein the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions are fabricated such that the interior surface of each of the first glove and the second glove is of a first color and the exterior surface of each of the first glove and the second glove is of a second color, and the first color contrasts with the second color (para. 40, “FIG. 3, when a second glove 202 having a different color is worn over the glove 100, a breach 210 of the outer surface of the second glove 202 can be easily detected since the grip surface 110 of the glove 100 can be visible through the breach (e.g., puncture or tear) of the outer glove 202.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrist region, the palm region, and the plurality of digit regions of Di Lorenzo to be fabricated such that the interior surface of each of the first glove and the second glove is of a first color and the exterior surface of each of the first glove and the second glove is of a second color, and the first color contrasts with the second color, as taught by Robert, in order to improve the safety to the wearer when the gloves are worn.
Regarding claim 11, Robert further teaches the glove assembly according to claim 10, wherein providing the interior surface of the first color and the exterior surface of the second color acts as a wear or cut indicator (para. 40).
Regarding claim 12, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1. Di Lorenzo further discloses wherein the one or more digit regions of the plurality of digit regions includes a fingertip region (see annotated Fig. 1 below, see circled areas) and a remaining portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below, see rectangle areas), wherein the fingertip region is of a reduced circumference relative to a circumference of the remaining portion thereof (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
701
325
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Di Lorenzo further discloses the glove assembly according to claim 12, further comprising a transition portion extending between the fingertip region and the remaining portion (see annotated Fig. 1 of the rejection of claim 12 above, where the transition portion is between the circled fingertip regions and the rectangle remaining portions), wherein the transition regions tapers in circumference moving in a direction away from the palm region and towards a tip of the one or more digit regions (see annotated Fig. 1 of the rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 14, Di Lorenzo further discloses the glove assembly according to claim 13, wherein the fingertip region, the transition portion, and the remaining portion of the one or more digit regions of the first glove nest within the fingertip region, the transition portion, and the remaining portion of the one or more digit regions of the second glove (Fig. 1 & annotated Fig. 1 above of the rejection of claim 12, as assembled).
Regarding claim 15, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of undulations originate and terminate in the remaining portion of the one or more digit regions (of Di Lorenzo as evidenced by Champagne, see annotated Fig. 8 above of claim 6 rejection), and wherein the plurality of undulations in the first glove nest within the plurality of undulations in the second glove (of Champagne as evidenced by Di Lorenzo: Fig. 1 once assembled, the entire glove 14 nests in glove 15, and therefore, “the plurality of undulations in the first glove nest within the plurality of undulations in the second glove”).
Regarding claim 21, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1. Di Lorenzo further discloses wherein the first glove is a hand-specific glove and wherein the second glove is a hand-specific glove for the same hand as the first glove (para. 29, “While the exemplary glove assembly 10 is illustrated with the left hand and accommodating the same”).
Regarding claim 22, when in combination, Di Lorenzo and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 2, except for wherein the undulations extend to a length of one half or less of the circumference of the digit region where the undulations are present.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the undulations of Champagne to extend to a length of one half or less of the circumference of the digit region where the undulations are present, in order to provide a proper fit for a the wearer while maintaining flex (para. 101) and articulation of the wearer’s fingers. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 23, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 2, wherein the undulations start a distance downwardly from the fingertip region and extend through a length of the digit region (Di Lorenzo: see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 12 rejection, where “a length of the digit region” is/are the annotated rectangular areas; Champagne: see annotated Fig. 8 above of claim 6 rejection, where the length including 802 portions is “a length of the digit region”), wherein the undulations terminate a distance upwardly from the palm region (Di Lorenzo: see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 12 rejection; Champagne: see annotated Fig. 8 above of claim 6 rejection), and wherein the plurality of undulations in each of the first glove and the second glove comprises a plurality of alternating peaks and valleys (of Di Lorenzo: on glove 14 and 15; as evidenced by Champagne: para. 98 discloses the rib pattern 602/802 of Fig. 6E is included in Figs. 6-11, and therefore, Fig. 8 incorporates the pattern as disclosed in Fig. 6E; see annotated Fig. 6E of claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding claim 24, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 7, wherein the third glove is a hand-specific glove and wherein the fourth glove is a hand-specific glove for the same hand as the third glove (para. 29, “While the exemplary glove assembly 10 is illustrated with the left hand and accommodating the same, it will be understood by those having ordinary skill in the art that the inventive features of the present invention are equally applicable to a glove assembly that can accommodate a right hand.”; as such, the right hand glove assembly includes the third glove and the fourth glove).
Regarding claim 25, when in combination, Di Lorenzo, Robert, and Champagne disclose the glove assembly according to claim 1. Robert further teaches wherein the material used to fabricate the first glove and the second glove is nitrile (paras. 37-38, where 100 and 200 are made of nitrile; para. 40, where 200 is another 100 glove, and therefore, 200 is also made of nitrile like 100 is made of nitrile).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the amended limitations, in which additional consideration and reinterpretation has been given for a new grounds of rejection, as stated above.
Conclusion
15 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732