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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the claims filed October 20, 2025, in which claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25, and 27-28 were presented for examination, of which claims 1, 12, 15, 25, and 28 were amended, are 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 20, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants 1st Argument: Golomb teaches a boxing glove having an inner glove into which a boxer's hand is insertable with an outer shell conforming generally to the inner glove, padding secured between the inner glove and outer shell, and a web of flexible sheet material secured to the boxing glove. However, Kabaria teaches lattice transitioning structures useful in bumpers, pads, cushions, shock absorbers, and other lattice objects produced by additive manufacturing.
Applicant believes that the Office has improperly combined the references to allege obviousness of the claimed invention. A person skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine the teachings of Kabaria, describing structures found in bumpers or shock absorbers, with the boxing glove of Golomb. Golomb teaches independent structures with varying rigidities. Multiple structures of foam are pieced together which can move and dislodge when the glue that holds the foam together wears.
Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant points out, Kabaria teaches lattice structures for “a brace, arm, link, shock absorber, cushion, or pad” (Par. 0015) and for wearable protective devices (Par. 0016). Boxing gloves are well known as having pads and a type of protecting device for the hands, which is why Kabaria is analogous to the boxing glove of Golomb, since the structure being modified of Golomb is the pad itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize by the modification it would result in a weight reduction for the boxing glove.
Applicants 2nd Argument: The introduction of an organizational structure comprising one or more differing lattice architectures within the impact cushioning material represents a significant departure from the prior art. Neither Golomb nor Kabaria discloses or suggests a boxing glove insert wherein the lattice structures have locally or globally varying architectures-such as voronoi, gyroid, flat radial pattern (FRP), or combinations thereof-within a single insert or between multiple lattices. The cited references either teach traditional foam padding (Golomb) or generic lattice structures for unrelated applications (Kabaria) but do not contemplate the purposeful selection and combination of distinct lattice architectures to tailor mechanical properties for specific regions of a boxing glove.
Examiners Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees and shows below how the amended limitation is disclosed by Golomb in view of Kabaria.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is allowed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 5 show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. 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.
Examiner notes Replacement Drawings filed 10/20/2025 show a Figure 5 that is completely different from the Figure 5 filed in the original Drawings dated 11/27/2023. Because of this, it is believed the Replacement Drawing of Figure 5 introduces new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golomb (US Patent 4,603,439) in view of Kabaria et al. “Kabaria” (US PG Pub. 2021/0246959).
Regarding claim 1, Golomb discloses an impact cushioning material (28, Fig. 4-8) for use as an insert in a boxing glove, said impact cushioning material comprising: a first section (combination of annotated finger, knuckle, and dorsum portions in annotated Fig. 8 below) the first section having:
a) a finger portion at a first end (see annotated Fig. 8 below), a dorsum portion at a second end (see annotated Fig. 8 below), and a knuckle portion between the finger portion and the dorsum portion (see annotated Fig. 8 below), and
b) a top side (see annotated Fig. 8 below) and a bottom side (see annotated Fig. 8 below) spanning between the first end and the second end (see annotated Fig. 8 below);
a second section located at the bottom side of the first section (examiner notes annotated second section is shown within solid lines and dotted lines that represent the section underneath element 28 as shown in annotated Fig. 8 below) wherein the first section and the second section are provided in the top side (examiner notes both sections are shown within the top side in annotated Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8-Examiner Annotated
Golomb does not disclose a first and second lattice.
However, Kabaria teaches yet another protective pad (Par. 0015 and 0016), wherein Kabaria teaches a first lattice (see annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising a first plurality of cells formed by a first plurality of cell struts (Par. 0048, lines: 6-8 and Par. 0050, lines: 1-6, examiner notes the “first lattice” is made up of elements 12 and 14), the first plurality of cells defining a first mean cell volume (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), a second lattice (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the second lattice comprising a second plurality of cells formed by a second plurality of cell struts (Par. 0048, lines: 5-6), the second plurality of cells defining a second mean cell volume (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below);
wherein the first lattice and/or the second lattice have an organizational structure comprising one or more architectures (as shown in Fig. 1, where there are a plurality of cells in an organizational arrangement);
wherein the first mean cell volume is greater than the second mean cell volume (examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the volume within the “first lattice” is greater than the volume within the “second lattice” because the “first lattice” is shown having more cells).
PNG
media_image2.png
540
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
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 section as disclosed by Golomb, by incorporating a first and second lattice, respectively, as taught by Kabaria, in order to reduce weight of the glove while in-use.
They do not explicitly disclose wherein the second lattice is less rigid than the first lattice.
However, according to Applicants Specification filed November 27, 2023, in Par. 0054, lines: 1-3 it is stated:
“Generally, lower cell volume results in a higher cell count within a given area.
Increasing the cell count can have various effects, such as increasing the weight
and/or rigidity of the insert 10.”
Examiner notes in annotated Fig. 1 of Kabaria the annotated “second lattice” has less cells within it than the annotated “first lattice”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize due to this, the second lattice would be less rigid than the first lattice, to a degree.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior-art
device disclosed by Golomb in view of Kabaria would have the same parameters used to create the Applicants claimed invention, in order to have sufficient structural integrity.
Regarding claim 2, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the impact cushioning material (28 of Golomb) defines an arcuate profile (see annotated Fig. 1 above) such that a length of a top side of the insert is greater than a length of a bottom side of the insert (examiner notes the “length” is shown between the annotated “first end” and “second end”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize since the top side of the profile follows an arc with a larger radius than the radius of the bottom side, the length of the top side spans a greater distance).
Regarding claim 4, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the second lattice is nested within a portion of the first lattice (examiner notes the annotated “second section” is shown “nested within” a portion of the annotated “first section” in annotated Fig. 1 above of Golomb. In addition, with the combination presented above, the annotated “first section” and “second section” of Golomb are modified to be “lattices” as taught by Kabaria. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the limitation is disclosed by the combination of Golomb in view of Kabaria).
Regarding claim 5, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose a ratio of the first mean cell volume to the second mean cell volume is about 1.01-2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the ratio of the first mean cell volume to the second mean cell volume is about 1.01-2, in order to achieve optimal impact absorption when the impact cushioning material is in use, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the finger portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of Golomb) defines a mean finger cell volume (see annotated Fig. 1 below of Kabaria), the knuckle portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of Golomb) defines a mean knuckle cell volume (see annotated Fig. 1 below of Kabaria), the dorsum portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of Golomb) defines a mean dorsum cell volume (see annotated Fig. 1 below of Kabaria), and the mean knuckle cell volume is less than the mean dorsum cell volume (examiner notes as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below of Kabaria).
PNG
media_image3.png
568
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 8, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the first plurality of cell struts defines a first cell strut width (see annotated Fig. 1 below of Kabaria), the second plurality of cell struts defines a second cell strut width (see annotated Fig. 1 below), and the first cell strut width is greater than the second cell strut width (examiner notes as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
540
824
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 9, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose a ratio of the first cell strut width to the second cell strut with is about 1.01-3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the ratio of the first cell strut width to the second cell strut with is about 1.01-3, in order to achieve optimal impact absorption when the impact cushioning material is in use, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose a thickness of the knuckle portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below of Golomb) is greater than a thickness of the finger portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
500
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 12, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose at least a part of the first lattice has a triangular architecture (12, Fig. 1 of Kabaria).
Regarding claim 13, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose at least part of the first lattice has a triangular architecture (12, Fig. 1 of Kabaria).
They do not explicitly disclose at least part of the first lattice comprises the voronoi architecture.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the part of the first lattice have a voronoi architecture, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the first lattice. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Please note that in the instant application, Par. 0035, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation(s).
Regarding claim 15, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose at least a part of the second lattice has a honeycomb architecture (11, Fig. 1 of Kabaria, Examiner notes it is well known in the art a honeycomb is formed from hexagonal shapes, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose at least part of the second lattice has the voronoi architecture (11, Fig. 1 of Kabaria, Examiner notes A hexagonal grid is a specific type of voronoi architecture).
Regarding claim 17, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose at least one cell of the first plurality of cells (12 of Kabaria) defines a triangular shape (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose at least a portion of the insert (28 of Golomb) comprises a 3D-printable resin (Par. 0059 and Par. 0003 of Kabaria).
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 insert as disclosed by Golomb, by comprising a 3D printable resin as taught by Kabaria, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the insert.
Regarding claim 20, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the 3D-printable resin (Par. 0059 and Par. 0003 of Kabaria) is an elastomeric resin (Par. 0013).
Regarding claim 22, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose further comprising a foam thumb portion (34 of Golomb) adhered to the dorsum portion (see annotated Fig. 8 above, Col. 4, lines: 15-22, examiner notes element 34 is indirectly connected to element 28 as shown in Fig. 6-8).
Regarding claim 23, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose further comprising wherein the impact cushioning material (28 of Golomb) is configured as one portion of the padding of the boxing glove (examiner notes as shown in Fig. 4-8).
Regarding claim 25, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose the impact cushioning material (28 of Golomb) is replaceably removable from the boxing glove (Col. 3, line: 67-Col. 4, line: 3, examiner notes element 28 is shown being fully capable of being removed since it’s not cemented, and “replaceably removable…glove” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 27, Golomb in view of Kabaria disclose a boxing glove (10, Fig. 1-3), comprising the impact cushioning material of claim 1 (28, Fig. 4-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732