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 .
Status of Claims
In response to the Application filed 2/29/2024, claims 1-18 are presented for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “2” and “12”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “27”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "8" and "10" have both been used to designate back thumb panel and the inner thumb panel, see the lead lines of 8 and 10 in Figs. 1 and 5, which are different panel sections than the lead lines of 8 and 10 as shown in Figs. 2-4. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “top insulating layer 50” as described in the specification. Examiner notes that Fig. 7 shows top insulating layer 50, but it is unclear where/how/if the top insulating layer exists in Figs. 1-6. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, and 10: the recitation “the user hand” should be amended to read “the user’s hand”;
Claims 6 and 15: the recitation “a pinky side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side” should be amended to read “a pinky side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along a second side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets the term “sleeve” as the same as “hand covering portion” throughout the claim set because the sleeve is the hand covering portion- both structures include the back panel and the wrist portion.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “affixing means” in claim 6 line 7 and claim 15 line 7. Claim 6 line 7 and claim 15 line 7 both set forth the limitation “an affixing means selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap”, which invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites a means plus function without sufficient structure in the claim.
For claim 6 line 7, the corresponding/equivalent structure is defined in paras. 8 and 35 of the specification, where the affixing means comprises a hook and loop fastener.
For claim 15 line 7, the corresponding/equivalent structure is defined in paras. 8 and 35 of the specification, where the affixing means comprises a hook and loop fastener.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-9 is/are 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, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning of “an interior of the mitten” and “an interior of the sleeve”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it appears an interior of the mitten is the same structure as an interior of the sleeve. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify how/if these structures are the same or different, or if there are two interior spaces that exist in the mitten/sleeve. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the Examiner interprets “an interior of the mitten” and “an interior of the sleeve” as the same structure. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 8 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning of “the thumb side hand wrap and the pinky side hand wrap are selectively moveable between an open position where no pressure is applied to the user hand, and a closed position where the pinky side hand wrap overlays the thumb side hand wrap, wherein the second securing structure of the pinky side hand wrap engages the first securing structure of the thumb side hand wrap to maintain the thumb side hand wrap and the pinky side hand wrap in the closed position”. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim either an apparatus or a method, or both an apparatus and a method steps in the limitation as presented. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify whether the limitation is claiming one of or both an apparatus and a method by reciting at least “an open position where no pressure is applied to the user hand” and “a closed position where the pinky side hand wrap overlays the thumb side hand wrap”, or whether the limitation is intended to read “an open position configured to apply no pressure to the user’s hand” and “a closed position configured to overlay the pinky side hand wrap on the thumb side hand wrap”, respectively. As such, Examiner respectfully advises Applicant to include “configured to” language to overcome claiming both an apparatus and a method step. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the limitation as a functional limitation and treats claim 8 as an apparatus claim for a thumb side hand wrap and the pinky side hand wrap. Examiner further interprets such reference to the movable open and closed positions as merely Applicant’s statements of intended use of the thumb and pinky side hand wrap in order to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation in pursuant of PTO practice. Claim 8 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 4 positively claim portions of the human anatomy, “a user” in line 2. It is recommended that Applicant adopt language such as "configured to" be associated with the recited portions of human anatomy in order to avoid positively claiming human anatomy.
Claim 14 positively claim portions of the human anatomy, “a user” in line 2. It is recommended that Applicant adopt language such as "configured to" be associated with the recited portions of human anatomy in order to avoid positively claiming human anatomy.
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, 3, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanous (US D249,749 S).
Regarding claim 1, insofar as is definite, Wanous discloses a mitten (Figs. 1-4; description), comprising:
a sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 below) extending into a wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) for receiving a user hand (Fig. 1), wherein the sleeve comprises:
a back panel (see annotated Fig. 1 below, highlighted gray area) designed with a hand covering portion extending through the wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the highlighted area and the portion including the wrist portion make up the hand covering portion), wherein the hand covering portion comprises a pinky side panel (Fig. 1, where the pinky side panel is to the right of the zipper fastener shown) and a thumb side panel (Fig. 1, where the thumb side panel is to the left of the zipper fastener shown);
a zipper (the description & Fig. 1 disclose a zipper) affixed to the pinky side panel and the thumb side panel for selectively opening and closing the sleeve for providing access to an interior of the mitten (Fig. 1, and the interior of the mitten is the cavity between the opened zipper and the space where a wearer’s hand would exist when the mitten is worn);
a thumb portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) affixed to the sleeve in operative communication with an interior of the sleeve (Fig. 1, as assembled, the thumb affixed to and is in communication with an interior of the sleeve because the thumb portion is attached to the sleeve to provide access or a route for the thumb of a wearer, and therefore, the interior of the sleeve; the interior of the sleeve is the space opposite the back panel portion shown and the cavity between the opened zipper and the space where a wearer’s hand would exist when the mitten is worn, as best understood; Examiner notes the term “communication” is very broad and merely means “a connecting route, passage, or link”, see defn. no. 4 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/communication, and therefore, the mitten of Wanous is has a thumb portion “in communication” with an interior of the sleeve, inasmuch as claimed), for receiving a thumb of the user hand (Fig. 1 shows the thumb portion is capable of receiving a thumb of the user’s hand);
and an overlay fixing structure (description: inner lining; see annotated Fig. 1 below) affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve for securing and encircling the mitten to the user hand within the sleeve (description & Figs. 1 & 3, as assembled and worn).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wanous discloses the mitten of claim 1, wherein a cinching structure (“elasticized wrist” as disclosed in the description; see annotated Fig. 1 below) is disposed between an upper wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below; Examiner notes the term “portion” is very broad and merely means “a part of a whole; fraction”, see defn. no. 1 of Collins English Dictionary- Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition, 2014, entry via thefreedictionary.com/portion, and therefore, the upper and lower wrist portions of Wanous meets the limitation inasmuch as claimed) and a lower wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the wrist portion adjacent the zipper and anchored at ends of the pinky side panel and the thumb side panel (see annotated Fig. 1 below), for cinching the wrist portion around a wrist of the user hand (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the elasticized wrist is functionally capable of cinching the wrist portion around a wrist of the user’s hand).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Wanous discloses a method (see description) for securing a mitten on a user hand for use by people with limited hand dexterity (It is noted that “for securing a mitten on a user hand for use by people with limited hand dexterity” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function; Wanous discloses the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function), comprising:
opening a zipper (see description) affixed to a pinky side panel (Fig. 1, where the pinky side panel is to the right of the zipper fastener shown) and a thumb side panel (Fig. 1, where the thumb side panel is to the left of the zipper fastener shown) of a hand covering portion of a sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection, highlighted gray area) where the pinky side panel and the thumb side panel are separated for providing access to an interior of the mitten (Fig. 1 below, the pinky and thumb side panels are separated via the zipper shown and provides access to the interior of the mitten, the interior of the mitten is the cavity between the opened zipper and the space where a wearer’s hand would exist when the mitten is worn), wherein the sleeve extending into a wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection);
opening an overlay fixing structure (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection) affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection and Fig. 3), on opening the zipper (Fig. 1; see description);
sliding a user hand into an interior of the sleeve (Fig. 1), on opening the overlay fixing structure (Fig. 1);
closing the overlay fixing structure for securing and encircling the mitten to the user hand within the sleeve (Fig. 1 shows the zipper to be capable of being closed and securing and encircling the mitten to the user’s hand within the sleeve);
and closing the zipper for connecting the pinky side panel and the thumb side panel of the hand covering portion of the sleeve to enclose the overlay fixing structure (Fig. 1 shows the zipper to be capable of being closed, and therefore, for connecting the pinky side panel and the thumb side panel of the hand covering portion of the sleeve to enclose the overlay fixing structure).
Regarding claim 13, Wanous discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the method comprises: cinching the wrist portion around a wrist of the user hand (Fig. 1) using a cinching structure (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 3 rejection), wherein the cinching structure is disposed between an upper wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 3 rejection) and a lower wrist portion of the wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 3 rejection) adjacent the zipper and anchored at ends of the pinky side panel and the thumb side panel (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 3 rejection).
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanous (US D249,749 S), in view of Edwards et al. (US 4,583,248 A).
Regarding claim 2, Wanous discloses the mitten of claim 1, wherein the sleeve comprises a front panel secured to the hand covering portion of the back panel (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
228
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the sleeve comprises a front panel secured to the hand covering portion of the back panel using a gusset, wherein the gusset extends along the wrist portion.
However, Edwards teaches a mitten (Fig. 2) wherein the sleeve comprises a front panel (18) secured to the hand covering portion of the back panel (10) using a gusset (20, 28).
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 front panel, back panel, and wrist portion of Wanous to include a gusset, as taught by Edwards, in order to provide a more comfortable fit and an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. When in combination, Wanous and Edwards disclose wherein the gusset extends along the wrist portion.
Regarding claim 5, Wanous discloses the mitten of claim 1, wherein the thumb portion comprises a back thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 4 below) that is secured to an inner thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
231
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the thumb portion comprises a back thumb panel that is secured to an inner thumb panel using a thumb gusset.
However, Edwards teaches a mitten (Fig. 2), wherein the thumb portion comprises a back thumb panel that is secured to an inner thumb panel using a thumb gusset (subsectional panel 28 on the thumb portion; col. 4 lines 17-27 discloses a series of subsection panels 28 existing along the perimeter of 10 and 18, and therefore, the subsectional panel 28 on the thumb portion is “a thumb gusset”).
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 back and inner thumb panels of Wanous to be secured to one another using a thumb gusset, as taught by Edwards, in order to provide a more comfortable fit and an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 11, Wanous discloses the method of claim 10, wherein a thumb portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection) is affixed to the sleeve and operatively communicates with an interior of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), for receiving a thumb of the user hand (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), wherein the thumb portion comprises a back thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 4 of claim 5 rejection above) that is secured to an inner thumb panel (see annotated Fig. 4 of claim 5 rejection above).
Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the thumb portion comprises a back thumb panel that is secured to an inner thumb panel using a thumb gusset.
However, Edwards teaches a mitten (Fig. 2), wherein the thumb portion comprises a back thumb panel that is secured to an inner thumb panel using a thumb gusset (subsectional panel 28 on the thumb portion; col. 4 lines 17-27 discloses a series of subsection panels 28 existing along the perimeter of 10 and 18, and therefore, the subsectional panel 28 on the thumb portion is “a thumb gusset”).
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 back and inner thumb panels of Wanous to be secured to one another using a thumb gusset, as taught by Edwards, in order to provide a more comfortable fit and an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, Wanous discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the sleeve comprises a back panel (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection) that is designed with the hand covering portion extending through the wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 1 above of claim 1 rejection), wherein the sleeve comprises a front panel (see annotated Fig. 4 above of claim 2 rejection) secured to the hand covering portion of the back panel (see annotated Figs. 1 and 4 above of claim 1 and 2 rejections).
Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the sleeve comprises a front panel secured to the hand covering portion of the back panel using a gusset, wherein the gusset extends along the wrist portion.
However, Edwards teaches a mitten (Fig. 2) wherein the sleeve comprises a front panel (18) secured to the hand covering portion of the back panel (10) using a gusset (20, 28).
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 front panel, back panel, and wrist portion of Wanous to include a gusset, as taught by Edwards, in order to provide a more comfortable fit and an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. When in combination, Wanous and Edwards disclose wherein the gusset extends along the wrist portion.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanous (US D249,749 S), in view of Cuccia (US 5,375,263 A).
Regarding claim 4, Wanous discloses the mitten of claim 3, wherein the cinching structure is elastic (“elasticized wrist” as disclosed in the description). Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the cinching structure is an elastic cord secured in a tightened position by use of a spring-loaded cinch, wherein the spring-loaded cinch allows a user to squeeze with a limited hand use.
However, Cuccia teaches a mitten (10; Fig. 3), wherein the cinching structure is a cord (16) secured in a tightened position (when 16 is in a closed/secured position, as described in col. 3 lines 44-46) by use of a spring-loaded cinch (18; barrel fasteners are spring-loaded), wherein the spring-loaded cinch allows a user to squeeze with a limited hand use (18 is functionally capable of allowing a user to squeeze with a limited hand use).
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 elastic cinching structure of Wanous to be a cord secured in a tightened position by use of a spring-loaded cinch, wherein the spring-loaded cinch allows a user to squeeze with a limited hand use, as taught by Cuccia, in order to adjust the mitten for a better fit and improve comfort.
Regarding claim 14, Wanous discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the cinching structure is elastic (“elasticized wrist” as disclosed in the description). Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the cinching structure is an elastic cord secured in a tightened position by use of a spring-loaded cinch, wherein the spring-loaded cinch allows a user to squeeze with a limited hand use.
However, Cuccia teaches a mitten (10; Fig. 3), wherein the cinching structure is a cord (16) secured in a tightened position (when 16 is in a closed/secured position, as described in col. 3 lines 44-46) by use of a spring-loaded cinch (18; barrel fasteners are spring-loaded), wherein the spring-loaded cinch allows a user to squeeze with a limited hand use (18 is functionally capable of allowing a user to squeeze with a limited hand use).
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 elastic cinching structure of Wanous to be a cord secured in a tightened position by use of a spring-loaded cinch, wherein the spring-loaded cinch allows a user to squeeze with a limited hand use, as taught by Cuccia, in order to adjust the mitten for a better fit and improve comfort.
Claim(s) 6-9, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanous (US D249,749 S), in view of Berry (US 2016/0255892 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wanous discloses the mitten of claim 1. While Wanous discloses the overlaying fixing structure affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve (Fig. 3), Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the overlay fixing structure comprises: a thumb side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to a lower insulating layer, wherein the thumb side hand wrap is overlaid by the thumb side panel; a pinky side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to the lower insulating layer of the sleeve, wherein the pinky side hand wrap is overlaid by the pinky side panel; and an affixing means selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap, encircling the user hand within the sleeve.
However, Berry teaches a mitten (at least para. 12 provides evidence for the disclosure including a mitten; Examiner notes that all figures showing a glove, therefore, includes the same structures for a mitten), wherein the overlay fixing structure (107; Fig. 1) comprises: a thumb side hand wrap (108; Fig. 2) affixed to a lower insulating layer (Fig. 2 shows 108 is attached to middle 202 along the thumb side); a pinky side hand wrap (109; Fig. 2) affixed to the lower insulating layer of the sleeve (Fig. 2 shows 109 is attached to middle 202 along the pinky side); and an affixing means (204, 302) selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap (Fig. 3, para. 22), encircling the user hand (Figs. 1 & 3 when 204 and 302 are fastened).
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 overlay fixing structure of Wanous to include a thumb side hand wrap, a pinky side hand wrap, a lower insulating layer, and an affixing means, as taught by Berry, in order to provide a more adjustable and comfortable fit for the wearer. When in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose wherein a thumb side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to a lower insulating layer, the thumb side hand wrap is overlaid by the thumb side panel; a pinky side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to the lower insulating layer of the sleeve, wherein the pinky side hand wrap is overlaid by the pinky side panel, and an affixing means selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap, encircling the user hand within the sleeve.
Regarding claim 7, when in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose the mitten of claim 6, wherein the affixing means comprises a hook and loop fastener (of Wanous and as evidenced by Berry: para. 12), wherein the hook and loop fastener comprises: a first securing structure (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: 204) affixed on an unsecured side of the thumb side hand wrap (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: see annotated Fig. 3 below, showing 204 affixed on 108 at the annotated unsecured side); and a second securing structure (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: 302) affixed on an unsecured side of the pinky side hand wrap (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: see annotated Fig. 3 below, showing 204 affixed on 109 at the annotated unsecured side).
PNG
media_image5.png
507
548
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, insofar as is definite, Berry further teaches the mitten of claim 6, wherein the thumb side hand wrap and the pinky side hand wrap are selectively moveable between an open position (Fig. 2; paras. 7 & 23) where no pressure is applied to the user hand, and a closed position (Fig. 4; para. 9) where the pinky side hand wrap overlays the thumb side hand wrap (Fig. 4, para. 28), wherein the second securing structure of the pinky side hand wrap engages the first securing structure of the thumb side hand wrap to maintain the thumb side hand wrap and the pinky side hand wrap in the closed position (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, when in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose the mitten of claim 6. Wanous does not disclose wherein a top insulating layer is affixed to the lower insulating layer that substantially extends the length of the sleeve, wherein the back panel with the hand covering portion is disposed on the top insulating layer.
However Berry teaches wherein a top insulating layer (left and right 202; Fig. 2) is affixed to the lower insulating layer (Fig. 2 shows left and right 202 are attached to middle 202 to make up the interior portion as described in para. 23).
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 sleeve and back panel of Wanous to include a top insulating layer affixed to a lower insulating layer, as taught by Berry, in order to provide more warmth and protection to the wearer’s hands. When in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose wherein a top insulating layer is affixed to the lower insulating layer that substantially extends the length of the sleeve, wherein the back panel with the hand covering portion is disposed on the top insulating layer.
Regarding claim 15, Wanous discloses the method of claim 10. While Wanous discloses the overlaying fixing structure affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve (Fig. 3), Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the overlay fixing structure comprises: a thumb side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to a lower insulating layer, wherein the thumb side hand wrap is overlaid by the thumb side panel; a pinky side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to the lower insulating layer of the sleeve, wherein the pinky side hand wrap is overlaid by the pinky side panel; and an affixing means selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap, encircling the user hand within the sleeve.
However, Berry teaches a mitten (at least para. 12 provides evidence for the disclosure including a mitten; Examiner notes that all figures showing a glove, therefore, includes the same structures for a mitten), wherein the overlay fixing structure (107; Fig. 1) comprises: a thumb side hand wrap (108; Fig. 2) affixed to a lower insulating layer (Fig. 2 shows 108 is attached to middle 202 along the thumb side); a pinky side hand wrap (109; Fig. 2) affixed to the lower insulating layer of the sleeve (Fig. 2 shows 109 is attached to middle 202 along the pinky side); and an affixing means (204, 302) selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap (Fig. 3, para. 22), encircling the user hand (Figs. 1 & 3 when 204 and 302 are fastened).
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 overlay fixing structure of Wanous to include a thumb side hand wrap, a pinky side hand wrap, a lower insulating layer, and an affixing means, as taught by Berry, in order to provide a more adjustable and comfortable fit for the wearer. When in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose wherein a thumb side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to a lower insulating layer, the thumb side hand wrap is overlaid by the thumb side panel; a pinky side hand wrap affixed to the interior surface of the sleeve along one side to the lower insulating layer of the sleeve, wherein the pinky side hand wrap is overlaid by the pinky side panel, and an affixing means selectively affixes the thumb side hand wrap to the pinky side hand wrap, encircling the user hand within the sleeve.
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 15, wherein the affixing means comprises a hook and loop fastener, wherein the hook and loop fastener comprises: a first securing structure affixed on an unsecured side of the thumb side hand wrap; and a second securing structure affixed on an unsecured side of the pinky side hand wrap.
Regarding claim 17, when in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose the method of claim 15, wherein the affixing means comprises a hook and loop fastener (of Wanous and as evidenced by Berry: para. 12), wherein the hook and loop fastener comprises: a first securing structure (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: 204) affixed on an unsecured side of the thumb side hand wrap (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 7 rejection, showing 204 affixed on 108 at the annotated unsecured side); and a second securing structure (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: 302) affixed on an unsecured side of the pinky side hand wrap (of Wanous, as evidenced by Berry: see annotated Fig. 3 above of claim 7 rejection, showing 204 affixed on 109 at the annotated unsecured side).
Regarding claim 18, when in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose the method of claim 15. Wanous does not directly disclose wherein the method comprises affixing a top insulating layer to the lower insulating layer that substantially extends the length of the sleeve, wherein the back panel with the hand covering portion is disposed on the top insulating layer.
However Berry teaches wherein the method comprises affixing a top insulating layer (left and right 202; Fig. 2) is affixed to the lower insulating layer (Fig. 2 shows left and right 202 are attached to middle 202 to make up the interior portion as described in para. 23).
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 sleeve and back panel of Wanous to include a top insulating layer affixed to a lower insulating layer, as taught by Berry, in order to provide more warmth and protection to the wearer’s hands. When in combination, Wanous and Berry disclose wherein a top insulating layer is affixed to the lower insulating layer that substantially extends the length of the sleeve, wherein the back panel with the hand covering portion is disposed on the top insulating layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See similar gloves and mittens in the PTO-892 form attached to this Office Action.
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