DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 12/03/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1, 4-5, 7-14, and 18, and cancelled claims 2-3 and 15.
Claims 1, 4-14, and 16-20 are pending, of which claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-14, and 16-18 are rejected.
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 .
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites, “the second layer comprises rubber, latex and/or chloroprene” in lines 2-3. The scope of the claim is unclear as chloroprene and latex are types of rubber. Therefore, it is unclear if any type of rubber would meet the required material of the second layer or if latex or chloroprene are necessary.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-9,11-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Möbus (DE202009009752U1) in view of Guevel et al. (US 2004/0148921) (Guevel) and Hofmann (US 2022/0295924).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Möbus. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 4-9, and 11
Möbus teaches a protective glove, in particular a firefighter’s glove, with an outer layer and at least one inner layer. The outer layer protects from mechanical damage. The inner layer comprises an electrically insulating material to protect against electric shock. The electrically insulating layer has a dielectric strength for voltages greater than 500 V. See, e.g. paragraphs [0001-0002], [0004-0007], [0024], and FIG. 3. Möbus further teaches the electrically. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The electrically insulating layer corresponds to a shell of material.
The recitation in the claims that the glove is “arranged such that the first layer is outermost when worn” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Möbus disclose the glove as presently claimed, it is clear that the outer layer of Möbus would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. being the outermost layer when the glove is worn, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Möbus does not explicitly teach the outer layer comprises a yarn (A) or the outer and inner layer are bonded to form a composite fabric layer (B).
With respect to the difference, Guevel (A) teaches a cut-resistant yarn intended especially for the production of garments, including gloves, for protection against mechanical attack. The cut-resistant yarn includes a glass multifilament core possessing a 64 tex (i.e., 640 dtex). The core is covered by a wrapping with a 440 dtex para-aramid multifilament in the S or Z direction. The core is covered by a second and third wrapping produce with a multifilament made of polyethylene in the opposite direction of the previous wrapping. Knitted products comprising the cut-resistant yarn obtain very high levels of abrasion resistance and protection against chemical attack. The cut-resistant yarn allows the production of protective equipment which provides users with good safety, flexibility, and comfort. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0003], [0011-0013], [0015], [0029-0040], and FIG. 3.
Guevel and Möbus are analogous art as they are both drawn to protective equipment.
In light of the motivation as provided by Guevel, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cut-resistant yarn as the material of the outer layer of Möbus, in order to provide protective equipment which provides users good safety, flexibility, and comfort, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Hofmann (B) teaches a glove comprising a structure of at least two layers. For a secure attachment the layers are bonded by an adhesive. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0040], [0053], and [0092-0094].
Hofmann and Möbus in view of Guevel are analogous art as they are both drawn to gloves.
In light of the motivation as provided by Hofmann, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesive to bond the outer and inner layer of Möbus in view of Guevel, in order to provide a secure attachment of the layers and produce a composite fabric layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12
Möbus in view of Guevel and Hofmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the cut-resistant yarn is knitted to form the first layer.
Guevel further teaches knitted products comprising the cut-resistant yarn obtain very high levels of abrasion resistance and protection against chemical attack. Paragraph [0015].
In light of the motivation as provided by Guevel, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the cut-resistant yarn to form a knitted fabric as the outer layer of the glove of Möbus in view of Guevel and Hofmann, in order to produce an outer layer with high levels of abrasion resistance and protection against chemical attack, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13
Möbus further teaches the electrically insulating layer is made of latex. Paragraph [0009].
Regarding claim 14
Möbus further teaches the thickness of the inner layer controls the inner layer’s protection against voltage. Paragraph [0007].
Although there are no disclosures on the thickness of the electrically insulating layer as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the thickness of the electrically insulating layer, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to attain the desired protection against voltage, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16
Möbus further teaches the glove includes a third layer, an inner lining, made of heat-resistant material. Paragraphs [0011-0012], [0024], FIG. 3, and claim 6.
Regarding claim 17
The recitation in the claims that the glove is “arranged such that the third layer is innermost when worn” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Möbus disclose the glove as presently claimed, it is clear that the inner lining of Möbus would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. being the innermost layer when the glove is worn, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18
Möbus further teaches the outer layer, inner layer, and inner lining form an integral structure as shown in FIG. 3. Paragraph [0024]. It follows the outer layer, inner layer, and inner lining are integrally formed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Möbus (DE202009009752U1) in view of Guevel et al. (US 2004/0148921) (Guevel) and Hofmann (US 2022/0295924), as applied in claim 9 above, and further in view of Fisher et al. (US 2014/0090349) (Fisher).
Regarding claim 10
Möbus in view of Guevel and Hofmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above, however does not explicitly teach the polyethylene multifilament possessing a linear density in the range of 500 dtex to 2000 dtex.
With respect to the difference, Fisher teaches a cut resistant yarn for producing cut resistant fabrics comprising a core, a first layer comprising a first filament made of a cut resistant material wrapped around a core in a first direction, and a second layer including a second filament wrapped around the first layer in a second direction that is opposite of the first direction. The filament of the second layer preferably has a linear mass density in the range of 40 denier to 650 denier (i.e., 44.4 dtex to 722 dtex). See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002] and [0007-0010].
Fisher and Möbus in view of Guevel and Hofmann are analogous art as they are both drawn to fabrics providing mechanical protecting, such as cut resistance.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Fisher, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polyethylene multifilament of Möbus in view of Guevel and Hofmann such that it possesses a linear mass density in the range of 44.4 dtex to 722 dtex, in order to produce a cut-resistant yarn with predictable success as Fisher teaches a filament possessing a linear mass density in the range of 44.4 dtex to 722 dtex is suitable for wrapping around a glass core to produce a cut-resistant yarn, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. In view of the amendments, a new set of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant primarily argues the visible seams depicted in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 of Möbus shown the adjacent material layers are joined together via stitching not bonding and therefore the glove depicted in FIG. 3 does not disclose an electrically insulating second layer formed as a shell of material, which is bonded to a mechanically protective first layer to form a composite fabric layer. The presence of seams in the fabric material layers would make it impossible for the adjacent material layers to be bonded together. Remarks, pages 7-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, Möbus does not disclose the adjacent material layers joined together via stitching. Instead, Möbus teaches the adjacent material layers are laminated together and lamination prevents fibers from coming loose from the fabric at seams. Paragraph [0013]. Since Möbus does not disclose stitching, it is not clear if the presence of seams requires the presence of stitching. In addition, it is unclear what portion of FIG. 1 and 2 Applicant is referring to as visible seams.
Secondly, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the presence of seams in the fabric material layers would make it impossible for the adjacent material layers to be bonded together must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”. Applicant has provided no evidence or reasoning to support this conclusion.
Applicant further argues Möbus it not concerned with a protective glove that provides a user with improved dexterity and fingertip sensitivity in addition to mechanical protection and electrical insulation. Remarks, pages 8-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
In response to applicant's argument that Möbus is not concerned with improved dexterity and fingertip sensitivity in addition to mechanical protection and electrical insulation, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues Guevel fails to teach how the layers in claim 1 could be bonded together so as to improve the overall dexterity of the user. Remarks, page 10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
It is noted that while Guevel does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Guevel is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, i.e., a cut-resistant yarn, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention. Therefore, it is not necessary Guevel teach how the layers in claim 1 could be bonded together.
Applicant further argues Hofmann teaches away from incorporating an electrically insulating layer due to its incompatibility with capacitive touchscreens as discussed in paragraph [0005]. Applicant argues there is no teaching in Hofmann as to how an electrically insulating material configured to isolate the wearer against electrical shock from voltages of up to 1500V could be bonded to a cut-resistant fabric in a manner to form the composite fabric layer such that the dexterity of the user is not adversely affected. Remarks, pages 10-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, it is noted Hofmann is a secondary reference used to teach an adhesive may be used between layers of a glove to provide a secure attachment, as discussed on pages 11-12 of the Office Action mailed 12/03/2025 and repeated in the rejection above. It is noted that while Hofmann does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Hofmann is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, i.e., an adhesive to secure layers together in a glove, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Secondly, it is the Examiner’s opinion an adhesive between two adjacent material layers in a glove is capable of providing a secure attachment regardless if one of the layers is an electrically insulating layer. Therefore, whether or not an electrically insulating layer is used in Hofmann does not alter the teaching relied upon from Hofmann. The fact remains both Hofmann and Möbus are drawn to gloves containing multiple layers and therefore one would look to Hofmann to alter the glove of Möbus, regardless if Hofmann does not use an electrically insulating layer.
Applicant further argues Hofmann teaches the attaching can be heat bonding or an adhesive, Hofmann also teaches the leather cut piece is stitched together to form the glove. Remarks, pages 11-12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
As relied on in the Office Action mailed 12/03/2025 and repeated in the rejection above, the fact remains Hofmann teaches an adhesive between individual layers in a glove provides secure attachment. Paragraph [0053].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights