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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants remarks filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered. No claims were amened or cancelled. Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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) 2, 3, 5-10, 13, 15 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2015/047096) in view of Deal (US 5,694,261). The device of Smith et al. discloses,
With respect to claim 2,
A glove (1) comprising an opening configured to receive at least a portion of a hand of a wearer (Figure 1); a palm area (Figure 2), the palm area configured to correspond to a palm of the wearer's hand (Figure 2);
a mirror (5) attached to the glove (Figure 1); and the mirror having a front mirrored surface and a rear surface (Figure 2) and wherein the rear surface of the mirror is attached to the glove (Figure 3) and the mirror is sized and positioned on the glove such that when the wearer's palm is lifted and the front mirrored surface is visible to the wearer, and the mirror reflects a visible area behind the wearer (Figure 5). The device of Smith et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a mirror attached to a palm area.
The device of Deal teaches a glove having a mirror (10, Figure 6) attached to the palm area (Column 4, lines 50-55). In combination, the rear surface of the mirror would be attached to the palm area of the glove. 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 palm placement taught by Deal in order to provide comfortable fit and ease of use.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the mirror is removably attached to the palm of the glove (para 0023).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the mirror is a convex mirror (claim 9).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the mirror is further sized and positioned on the palm area (in combination) such that the wearer can grasp an object while wearing the glove. The prior art meets the structure as recited and therefore would be able to function in the manner recited, “can grasp an object while wearing the glove” see MPEP 2114. The fingers portions of the glove are not affected by the mirror and therefore a user would be capable of grasping an object while wearing the glove, as recited.
With respect to claim 7, wherein the mirror has a shape that is one from the group selected of a circular shape (5), a crescent shape, a semi-circular shape, a rectangular shape (para 0021) , a square shape, and a trapezoidal shape.
With respect to claim 8, wherein the mirror has an irregular shape. A rectangular has side lengths that are uneven, and therefore is a shape which is irregular since it “lacks perfect symmetry or evenness” as defined by Merriam Webster.
With respect to claim 9, wherein the irregular shape is contoured (claim 9, the outer surface is contoured in a convex shape).
With respect to claim 10,
A pair of gloves (para 0025), comprising: a first glove and a second glove (para 0025); the first glove including: an opening (at the wrist) configured to receive at least a portion of a first hand of a wearer (Figure 1); and a palm area, the palm area configured to correspond to a palm of the wearer's first hand (Figure 2) ;a mirror (5) attached to the glove (Figure 1); and the mirror having a front mirrored surface and a rear surface (5); and wherein the rear surface of the mirror is attached to the glove body (Figure 1) and the mirror is sized and positioned on the palm area such that when the wearer's palm is lifted and the front mirrored surface is visible to the wearer (Figure 5), and the mirror reflects a visible area behind the wearer (Figure 5; para 0009).
The device of Smith et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a mirror attached to a palm area.
The device of Deal teaches a glove having a mirror attached to the palm area (Column 4, lines 50-55). In combination, the rear surface of the mirror would be attached to the palm area of the glove. 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 palm placement taught by Deal in order to provide comfortable fit and ease of use.
With respect to claim 13, wherein the mirror is removably attached to the palm of the first glove (para 0023). In combination the mirror is removably attached to the palm area.
.
With respect to claim 15, wherein the mirror is a convex mirror (claim 9).
With respect to claim 16, wherein the mirror is further sized and positioned on the palm area (in combination) such that the wearer can grasp an object while wearing the glove. The prior art meets the structure as recited and therefore would be able to function in the manner recited, “can grasp an object while wearing the glove” see MPEP 2114. The fingers portions of the glove are not affected by the mirror and therefore a user would be capable of grasping an object while wearing the glove, as recited.
With respect to claim 17, wherein the mirror has a shape that is one from the group selected of a circular shape (5), a crescent shape, a semi-circular shape, a rectangular shape (para 0021), a square shape, and a trapezoidal shape.
With respect to claim 18, wherein the mirror has an irregular shape. A rectangular has side lengths that are uneven, and therefore is a shape which is irregular since it “lacks perfect symmetry or evenness” as defined by Merriam Webster.
With respect to claim 19, wherein the irregular shape is contoured. (claim 9, the outer surface is contoured in a convex shape).
With respect to claim 20, wherein the mirror is indirectly attached (2) to the palm area (in combination).
With respect to claim 21, wherein the mirror is indirectly attached (2) to the palm area (in combination).
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) 4, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and Deal, as applied above, in further view of Malone (US 4,863,239).
The modified device of Smith et al. substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to the dimensions of the device.
The device of Malone teaches,
With respect to claims 4 and 14, wherein the mirror has a major dimension between about 1.5 inches and about 3 inches. (column 3, line 26).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the second glove (Smith et al. para 0025) is configured to correspond to a wearer's second hand and comprises at least one wiper for wiping the mirror. (the device is made of a flat substrate (1) and meets the structural limitation of a “wiper” as currently presented.
The modified device of Smith et al substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to the type of material forming the wiper.
The device of Malone teaches
With respect to claim 12, wherein the at least one wiper (cloth substrate) comprises at least one of an absorbent material (Column 3 line 11), a soft plastic material, and an elastomeric material.
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 size mirror and material taught by Malone to provide adequate viewing and provide a durable comfortable body for the glove device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Deal teaches concealment not visibility, that lifting of the palm of the user reveals a pouch not a mirror and active manipulation is required. Applicant further argues that claims 2 and 10 require “the mirror to be visible merely when the wearer’s palm is lifted. Claims 2 and 10 recite “the mirror is attached to the palm area and the mirror is sized and positioned such that when the wearer’s palm is lifted the front mirrored surface is visible to the wearer and the mirror reflects a visible area behind the wearer”. This language is expressed functionally, which requires that prior art must merely be capable of performing the claim function in order to anticipate claim. See MPEP 2114. The device of Deal is relied upon to provide a teaching of placement. The prior art of Deal teaches a mirror (10) secured to a pouch (Figure 6, Column 3, lines 28-30) and being secured to a palm of a glove (Column 4, lines 50-55). The device of Deal is capable of performing the claim function, the mirror being sized and positioned (Figure 6) such that when the wearer’s palm is lifted (when the device is in in the open configuration, as shown in figure 6) the front mirror surface would be visible to the wearer and capable of reflecting an area behind the wearer as required by the claim. One could argue that additional manipulation would be required to close the pouch not open it; however, the claims are directed to the apparatus and not the method of use. The argument that the claims “require the mirror to be visible merely when lifted” implies that no other manipulation can be present in order to anticipate the claims. The limitations directed to the operation are recited functionally, and do not preclude the need open the pouch for view. The phraseology “merely when lifted” is not recited in the claims nor doe the claims require visibility without prior manipulation. Because the mirror in the prior art is structurally capable of becoming visible when lifted, the functional limitation is met. Additional manipulation of the device does not negate anticipation where the claimed functional result is present in the disclosed structure.
Applicant further argues that the modification would change the basic principle of operation for the primary reference. Applicant argues that the modification would make the device unsuitable for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of Smith is to improve visibility for wearers and list biking as an example. However; it is noted limited to a person grasping handlebars and the additional of the mirror to the palm would not change the basic principle of operation which is to improve visibility. The prior art teaches the glove being used in sailing, plumbing, kayaking and a variety of other intended use scenarios when improved visibility is desired.
`In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art device of Deal teaches the mirror provides improved visibility when mobility and visibility is restricted (Column 3, lines 1-5) and provides ease of use in tight spaces as a plumber would often encounter under a house, crawl space or cabinet.
Applicant argues that the device of Deal expressly teaches away from the need to protect a mirror and therefore would not want an exposed mirror on a palm. The claims as currently recited do not require an exposed mirror. Further the device of Deal teaches a protected mirror at a palm location.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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