DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were subject to restriction requirement on 09/09/2025.
Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-18, without traverse on 11/06/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-18 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In view of clarity, it is suggested to amend 150dtex to 800dtex in line 2 of claim 8 to read 150 dtex to 800 dtex.
In view of clarity, it is suggested to amend 500dtex to 2000dtex in line 2 of claim 10 to read 500 dtex to 2000 dtex.
In view of clarity is suggested to amend 0.25mm to 1.25mm in line 2 of claim 14 to read 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 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 1 recites, “(e.g. against abrasion, cuts, puncture and/or tearing)” in line 3. It is unclear if protection against abrasion, cuts, puncture, and/or tearing are required in claim 1. The Examiner will interpret any mechanical protection as reading on the claim.
Claim 2 recites, “e.g. bonded together” in line 2. It is unclear if the first and second layers are required to be bonded together. The Examiner will interpret any integration of the first and second layer reading on the claim.
Claim 3 recites, “the second layer is formed as a shell of material, which is then bonded to the first layer to form a composite fabric layer” in lines 1-3. The recitation “the bonded to the first layer” refers to a future process step. Given the claims are drawn to a product, it is unclear if the composite fabric layer is required in the claim.
Claim 3 recites, “a shell of material” in line 2. It is unclear what a shell of material is. The Examiner will interpret any electrically insulating material as a formed as a shell of material.
Claim 4 recites, “optionally wherein the aramid filament comprises a para-aramid and/or a meta-aramid” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if a para-aramid and/or a meta-aramid fiber are required in the claim. The Examiner will interpret any aramid filament as reading on the claim.
Claim 5 recites, “(e.g. 670 dtex)” in line 2. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if any value between 200 to 1200 dtex meets claim 5, or if claim 5 requires 670 dtex. The Examiner will interpret any value between 200 to 1200 dtex as reading on the claim.
Claim 7 recites, “e.g. in an S and/or Z formation” in line 2. It is unclear if an S and/or Z formation is required in claim 7. The Examiner will interpret any wrapped filament will read on the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “(e.g. 340 dtex)” in line 2. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if any value between 150 to 800 dtex meets claim 8, or if claim 8 requires 340 dtex. The Examiner will interpret any value between 150 to 800 dtex reading on the claim.
Claim 9 recites, “e.g. in an S and/or Z formation” in line 2. It is unclear if an S and/or Z formation is required in claim 9. The Examiner will interpret any wrapped fibers reading on the claim.
Claim 10 recites, “(e.g. 750 dtex)” in line 2. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if any value between 500 dtex to 2000 dtex meets claim 10, or if claim 10 requires 750 dtex. The Examiner will interpret any value between 500 to 2000 dtex as reading on the claim.
Claim 11 recites, “an S/Z formation” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if either a S or Z formation reads on the claim or if a S and Z formation is required to meet this claim limitation. The Examiner will interpret either S or Z formation reading on the claim.
Claim 12 recites, “e.g. 13 GG” in line 3. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if any value between 10 to 21 GG meets claim 12, or if claim 12 requires 13 GG. The Examiner will interpret any value between 10 to 21 GG as reading on the claim.
Claim 13 recites, “e.g. natural rubber, latex and/or chloroprene” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if natural rubber, latex, and/or chloroprene are required in the claim or if any natural or synthetic rubber reads on the claim. The Examiner will interpret any natural or synthetic rubber as reading on the claim.
Claim 14 recites, “e.g. 0.75 to 0.85mm” in line 2. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if any value between 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm meets claim 14, or if claim 14 requires 0.75 to 0.85 mm. The Examiner will interpret any value between 0.25 mm to 1.25 mm as reading on the claim.
Claim 15 recites, “e.g. 1000V” in line 3. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It is unclear if any value up to 1500V meets claim 15, or if claim 15 requires 1000V. The Examiner will interpret any value up to 1500V as reading on the claim.
Claim 18 recites, “e.g. bonded together” in line 2. It is unclear if the first, second, and third layers are required to be bonded together. The Examiner will interpret any integration of the first, second, and third layers reading on the claim.
Regarding dependent claims 2-18, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 1 and 9, noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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 1-2, 4-9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Möbus (DE202009009752U1) in view of Guevel et al. (US 2004/0148921) (Guevel).
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 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. See, e.g. paragraphs [0001-0002], [0004-0007], [0024], and FIG. 3.
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.
With respect to the difference, Guevel 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.
Regarding claim 2
Möbus further teaches the outer and inner layer form an integral structure as shown in FIG. 3. Paragraph [0024]. It follows the outer and inner layer are integrally formed.
Regarding claim 12
Möbus in view of Guevel 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, 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 15
Möbus further teaches the electrically insulating layer has a dielectric strength for voltages greater than 500 V. 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).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Möbus (DE202009009752U1) in view of Guevel et al. (US 2004/0148921) (Guevel), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofmann (US 2022/0295924).
Regarding claim 3
Möbus in view of Guevel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the outer and inner layer are bonded to form a composite fabric layer.
With respect to the difference, Hofmann 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.
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), 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 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 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 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).
Conclusion
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