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 .
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 9 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.
Regarding claim 9 Applicant discloses, “a third side extending perpendicularly inwardly from the third side” on lines 2-3. How does a third side extend inwardly from itself? Should not this “extending perpendicularly inwardly” be in reference to another side?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao et al. (USPGPUB 2015/0353258).
Regarding claim 1, Yao et al. disclose a glove dispensing system, comprising:
a dispenser, comprising:
a slit (see “slit” in paragraph [0020]) extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a body of the dispenser;
an adhesive (see “adhesive segment” in paragraph [0016]) extending around a perimeter (18) of a surface of the dispenser; and
a release liner (20) removably couplable to the adhesive (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yao et al. disclose the glove dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the dispenser is configured to overlap an aperture (18) of a glove box (10,14), the adhesive configured to contact and adhere to the glove box (see paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tabuchi (USP 6,702,109).
Regarding claim 1, Tabuchi discloses a glove dispensing system, comprising:
a dispenser, comprising:
a slit (9) extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a body of the dispenser (8);
an adhesive (21 or 10) extending around a perimeter (19 or 18 or 11) of a surface of the dispenser; and
a release liner (24 or 11) removably couplable to the adhesive (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Tabuchi et al. disclose the glove dispensing system of claim 1, wherein the dispenser (8) is configured to overlap an aperture (4) of a glove box (3), the adhesive (10) configured to contact and adhere to the glove box (3).
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 13 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodrigues (USPGPUB 2008/0314920).
Regarding claim 5, Rodrigues discloses a glove dispensing system, comprising:
a housing (6) comprising a dispenser (5) on a first side, and at least one opening (7) on a second side configured to receive a glove box therethrough (see Figures 2-3);
the dispenser (5) comprising:
a slit (4) extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a body of the dispenser (see Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 5, wherein the slit of the dispenser further comprises circular apertures at each end (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Rodrigues discloses a glove dispensing system, comprising:
a holder (6), comprising:
a front face comprising an aperture (7);
a rear side configured to receive a glove box (see Figures 2-3);
a dispenser (5) configured to overlap the aperture on the front face, the dispenser comprising a slit (5) extending longitudinally along at least a portion of a body of the dispenser (see Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 9 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8, wherein the holder further comprises a second side extending perpendicularly rearwardly from the front side, and a third side extending perpendicularly inwardly from the third side.
Regarding claim 11, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8, wherein the holder further comprises a first railing (8) extending along a top edge and a second railing (8) extending along a bottom edge, the glove box receivable between the first and second railings (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8, wherein the slit of the dispenser further comprises circular apertures at each end (see Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi (USP 6,702,109) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Kowal (USPGPUB 2014/0061220).
Regarding claim 2, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 1. However, Tabuchi does not disclose a system wherein the slit of the dispenser further comprises circular apertures at each end. Kowal discloses a system wherein the slit of the dispenser further comprises circular apertures (78) at each end (see paragraph [0063] and Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tabuchi by including a system wherein the slit of the dispenser further comprises circular apertures at each end, as disclosed by Kowal, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing access holes to facilitate manual access to items (see paragraph [0063]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi (USP 6,702,109) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Hammons et al. (USP D809,318).
Regarding claim 3, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 1. However, Tabuchi does not disclose a system further comprising a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge. Hammons et al. disclose a system further comprising a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge (see Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Tabuchi by including a system further comprising a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge, as disclosed by Hammons et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing auxiliary dispensing/metering provisions (see title).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (USPGPUB 2008/0314920) as applied to claims 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Hammons et al. (USP D809,318).
Regarding claim 7, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 5. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a system further comprising a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge. Hammons et al. disclose a system further comprising a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge (see Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a system further comprising a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge, as disclosed by Hammons et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing auxiliary dispensing/metering provisions (see title).
Regarding claim 14, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a dispenser wherein the dispenser further comprises a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge. Hammons et al. disclose a dispenser wherein the dispenser further comprises a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge (see Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a dispenser wherein the dispenser further comprises a ridge extending longitudinally along the body of the dispenser, the slit positioned along the center of the ridge, as disclosed by Hammons et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing auxiliary dispensing/metering provisions (see title).
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues (USPGPUB 2008/0314920) as applied to claims 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 13 above, and further in view of Rodriguez et al. (USP 11,059,656).
Regarding claim 10, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a dispenser wherein the holder further comprises a tab configured to insert into an opening of the glove box. Rodriguez et al. disclose a dispenser wherein the holder further comprises a tab (513) configured to insert into an opening of the glove box (see Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a dispenser wherein the holder further comprises a tab configured to insert into an opening of the glove box, as disclosed by Rodriguez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing pins to interconnect a box and holder (see column 6 lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 12, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a dispenser wherein the dispenser is adhered to the holder. Rodriguez et al. disclose a dispenser wherein the dispenser is adhered to the holder (see column 6 lines 7-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a dispenser wherein the dispenser is adhered to the holder, as disclosed by Rodriguez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing the box from moving after being placed in the holder (see column 6 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 15, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 8. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a system further comprising a top member, a bottom member, a side lip, and a top lip. Rodriguez et al. disclose a system further comprising a top member, a bottom member, a side lip, and a top lip (see Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a system further comprising a top member, a bottom member, a side lip, and a top lip, as disclosed by Rodriguez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing the holder with channels (see column 6 lines 19-28).
Regarding claim 16, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 15. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a dispenser wherein the holder further comprises a tab configured to insert into an opening of the glove box. Rodriguez et al. disclose a dispenser wherein the holder further comprises a tab (513) configured to insert into an opening of the glove box (see Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a dispenser wherein the holder further comprises a tab configured to insert into an opening of the glove box, as disclosed by Rodriguez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing pins to interconnect a box and holder (see column 6 lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 17, Rodrigues discloses the glove dispensing system of claim 15. However, Rodrigues does not disclose a system wherein the dispenser is removably adhered to the holder. Rodriguez et al. disclose a system wherein the dispenser is removably adhered to the holder (see column 6 lines 7-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rodrigues by including a dispenser wherein the dispenser is removably adhered to the holder, as disclosed by Rodriguez et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing temporary adhesion means for the box and the holder (see column 6 lines 12-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
2/9/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655