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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Each plurality of finger portions extends outwardly from a distal portion of the glove body (claim 2) is not shown, it is noted that the finger portions are shown to extend outwardly from a interior of glove but does not appear to be at a distal end. The each plurality of finger portions at least partially extends outwardly from the dorsal side towards the palm side (claim 4) is not shown. A removable cover (claim 9) is not shown. A strap sew onto palm of glove (claim 10) is not shown. Each of the aforementioned elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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- 14 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the” with respect to a “dorsal side”, a “proximal side”, these elements have not yet been positively recited in the claim set.
Claim 3 recites “wherein at least a few of the plurality of finger portions” and it is unclear what constitutes a few. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and is therefrom indefinite.
Claim 4 recite “wherein each plurality of finger portion at least partially extends outwardly from the dorsal side toward the palm side” is unclear. The dorsal side is interpreted to be the side covering the rear portion of the hand. The palm side is interpreted to mean the portion covering the palm portion of the hand. Its unclear how the finger portions extend from the dorsal side toward a palm side when no palm side is disclosed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the” in respect to a palm side. A palm side has not yet been positively recited in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “solid flexible material comprises a single flexible solid weight or a plurality of solid weights” It is unclear if applicant is attempting claim an additional weighted element or if the applicant is claiming the weight of the material. For purposes of examination the claim has been construed to be material having single weight, or a material having multiple weights.
Claim 7 recites “is selected at last” it is unclear what “at last” means. Is applicant attempting to claim steps or order of selection? Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites “provides support to the hand for strengthening the hand, an arm, and an upper body of the user during the boxing or the weight lifting” It is unclear what element “provides support”.
Claim 10 recites “a plurality of finger holes” in addition to the “plurality of finger portions recited in claim 1. It is unclear if applicant is further defining the finger portions having finger holes, or two completely separate finger elements. Further, applicant recited “ a plurality of finger holes to receive a plurality of fingers”, then, “support strap creates a plurality of finger holes”. It is unclear if there are two sets of finger holes or if the second recited plurality of finger holes are the same plurality of finger holes. If they are two sets of finger holes, then the following recitation would also be unclear “, iii. wherein the plurality of finger holes that are created by the support strap sewn onto palm of glove, extends from inner side of the glove to the outer side of the wearable glove, attached at palm side, to receive fingers, wherein the plurality of finger holes separated from one another by a seam sewn onto the palm of the wearable glove,”, since it is unclear which set “the plurality of finger holes” is referring to. For purposes of examination the claim has been construed to mean a single set of a plurality of finger holes.
Claim 10 also recites “wherein the finger holes are spaced holes that are separated by a seam sewn onto palm of the wearable glove”. For clarity, the element should be referred to with the same language throughout the claim set (i.e. the plurality of finger holes, instead of “then finger holes”).
Claim 10 recites “are located from zero to 2 in away from the mid-point of the palm”. It is unclear what applicant is attempting to claim with the language from zero to 2 in away” Does applicant mean that the first second and third finger holes are located from zero to two inches away from the midpoint of the palm of the glove. Further it is unclear how all three holes claimed are capable of being located zero inches away? Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 11-13 recite “ a padding with a thickness, wherein the padding of the wearable glove is a layer that is positioned between an outer layer of the dorsal side of the wearable glove and the palm material of the wearable glove.” It is unclear if the padding is the same element of claim 1 which is “a solid flexible material” or if the padding is an additional interior element to the soft flexible material. The specification and drawing are silent to multiple interior padding/soft flexible materials and has been interpreted as the same element. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “an angle of curvature” is the angle referred to in the preceding claim or a new/different angle of curvature. If referring
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Rhee (US 3,945,045). The device of Rhee teaches,
A wearable glove adapted to be used for boxing and weight lifting (Figure 1), comprising:
a glove body (14) on the dorsal side (top side);
a plurality of finger portions (44, 26) adapted to secure at least one finger of a hand of a user (Figure 2 and 3);
a wrist opening (at 16) located at the proximal side of the glove body (Figure 3), thereby allowing the user to insert the hand into the wearable glove,
the dorsal side comprises a solid flexible (12) material integrally positioned within the dorsal side to operate as a punching surface while boxing (Figure 1), and;
a cavity (space between 26 and 40) that assists the user in lifting weights. The language “that assists the user in lifting weights” is a functional limitation. The prior art has an opening, that would allow better grip and therefore assist a user in lifting weights as currently recited, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 2, wherein each plurality of finger portions is at least partially elongated (26, and 40) and extends outwardly from a distal portion of the glove body (as best understood).
With respect to claim 3, wherein at least a few (26, 40), as best understood, of the plurality of finger portions are partially elongated and extend outwardly from a distal portion of the glove body (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 4, wherein each plurality of finger portions (26, 40) at least partially extends outwardly from the dorsal side towards the palm side, as best understood (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 5, wherein a wrist strap (16) is located at the proximal portion of the glove body, thereby providing a means for the wearable glove to be tightened thereto a wrist of the user. The language “thereby providing a means for the wearable glove to be tightened thereto a wrist of a user” is functional. The prior art teaches the structure of a wrist strap. It is noted there is no mechanical fastening or adjustment mechanism recited. The strap of Rhee would provide a tightened fit as it would secure snugly at the wrist area and maintain the glove in position, and meets the functional language as currently recited. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of finger portions (26, 40) comprising an aperture (opening at the top) located at a distal end, wherein the apertures allow each finger of the user to protrude therethrough (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, wherein the solid flexible material (12) is selected at last from a foam material (column 2, lines 45-50) or a non-foam material (Column 2, lines 45-50) and the solid flexible material comprises a single flexible solid weight or a plurality of solid weights (column 2, lines 45-50, the material disclosed would fall into a category of either being a single weight or multiple weights as recited).
With respect to claim 8, provides support to the hand for strengthening the hand, an arm, and an upper body of the user during the boxing or the weight lifting. The language “provides support to the hand for strengthening the hand, an arm, and an upper body of the user during the boxing or the weight lifting” is a functional recitation. The prior art of Rhee meets the structure as recited and would be capable for use to support to the hand for strengthening the hand, an arm, and an upper body of the user during the boxing or the weight lifting. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 11, as best understood, a padding (12) with a thickness, wherein the padding (12) of the wearable glove is a layer that is positioned between an outer layer of the dorsal side (14, rear side) of the wearable glove and the palm material (14, on palm side) of the wearable glove (Figure 1 and 6).
With respect to claim 12, as best understood, wherein, the padding tapers (Figure 1) at the outside of the wearable glove, starting from the front side to the middle and continuing to the back side of the wearable glove, with the padding being the thickest at the front of the glove Figure 1) , the most curved part of the wearable glove is at the dorsal side of the wearable glove near the front of the wearable glove (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 13, wherein the padding (12) of the wearable glove is made in a preformed shape (molded, claim 1), such that the curvature of the preformed shape of the padding of the wearable glove determines the curvature of the wearable glove that follows the curvature of the preformed padding, furthermore, the curvature of the preformed padding allows the wearable glove to extend farther around toward the palm side of the wearable glove (figure 1). The language “is made in a performed shape” is a product by process recitation. MPEP 2113 states that patentability of a product is based on the product itself, and not the process of making it. The prior art is capable of being made by preforming and therefore meets the language as recited.
back to an element that has been positively recited, the element should be referred to as “the/said” (i.e. an angle of the curvature). Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Murray (US 5,685,809). The device of Rhee substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a removable cover. The device of Murray teaches,
With respect to claim 9, a glove having a removable cover (46) that is suitable to cover the cavity at the palm (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the cover taught by Murray in order to provide assistance with exercise equipment (Column 2, lines 5-8).
Claim(s) 10 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee in view of Willis (US RE 32,287). The device of Rhee substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a plurality of finger holes. The device of Willis teaches,
With respect to claim 10, as best understood, finger portions defined by a plurality of finger holes (29, 30, 32, 34) to receive a plurality of fingers (Figure 1)
A support strap (column 2, line 58) creates the plurality of finger holes (29, 30, 32, 34),and;
wherein the plurality of finger holes (29, 30, 32, 34) are created by the support strap sewn (38, 40) onto palm of glove, extends from inner side of the glove to the outer side of the wearable glove, attached at palm side, to receive fingers, wherein the plurality of finger holes separated from one another by a seam sewn onto the palm of the wearable glove,;
wherein the finger holes are spaced holes that are separated by a seam sewn (38, 40) onto palm of the wearable glove, and;
wherein the support strap is such that, along the direction from the front of the wearable glove to the back of the wearable glove, the first, second and third finger holes are located from zero to two inches away from the mid-point of the palm, the strap of the prior art is in similar position to the strap of the instant invention and of the wearable glove, either toward the front or toward the back of the wearable glove. As best understood would meet the language recited. It is noted that it has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Willis and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the strap and finger portions taught by Willis in order to provide that the finger be held firmly in position (column 2, lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhee. The device of Rhee substantially discloses the claimed invention but is silent with respect to the angle of curvature of the padding being between 135 and 150. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Rhee and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the padding with an angle of curvature between 135 and 150 degrees in order to provide improved fit and comfort of the hand of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights