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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 01/15/2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been entered and are made of record.
Applicant has amended claims 1,5 and 6; cancelled 4, 7 and 9. At this time, claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12 are pending. Claim’s 13-19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s contention is that the coating weight which was previously found in claim 7, is not found in the teachings of Thompson.
It is the position of the Office that the burden is on the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed weight is critical and has unexpected results. This means that the Applicant must provide evidence and arguments to support the claim that the invention exhibits unexpected results that would be surprising to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. The Office requires that this burden of proof be met, and any evidence or arguments must be substantiated with facts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention made to optimize the coating weight used in the composite glove or specific part of the glove, since it has been held that, where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coating weight motivated by the desire to create a suitably strong and flexible glove or portions of the glove that are stronger than other portions. As such, the arguments are not found to be convincing and made final.
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) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2016/0120242 issued to Thompson et al. evidenced by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraton_(polymer).
Regarding modified Claim 1, where Applicant now seeks a heat and/or arc flash protection glove comprising a fire-resistant glove liner, which glove liner consists of a palm side and a backside, which palm side comprises palm side finger portions, a palm side center portion and a palm side cuff portion, which backside comprises backside finger portions, a backside center portion and a backside cuff portion, which glove liner is provided with a fire-resistant coating comprising a fire-resistant material, said fire-resistant coating comprises: a backside coating portion having an area of at least 4 cm2 and being arranged on the backside center portion, and a palm side coating portion arranged on the palm side of said glove liner, wherein said palm side coating portion covers at least 90% of said palm side finger portions and at least 90% of said palm side center portion, and comprises a first fire resistant coating comprising chloroprene having a total coating weight within a range of 3.3-25 g, wherein an average coating weight of said backside coating portion is within a range of 5-80% of an average coating weight of said palm side coating portion; and a second fire resistant coating arranged on at least said backside coating portion which comprises a total coating weight within a range of 0.66-10q,wherein said backside coating portion is fully or partly composed of a different composition compared to the first fire-resistant coating of the palm side coating portion;
Thompson teaches a heat and/or arc flash protection glove 160 comprising a fire resistant glove liner 102 [¶ 0048] which glove liner 102 consists of a palm side [Fig.2B] and a backside [Fig.1A]. The palm side comprises palm side finger portions 112,114,116,118, a palm side center portion and a palm side cuff portion 122. The backside comprises backside finger portions 112,114,116,118, a backside center portion and a backside cuff portion 122. The glove liner is provided with a fire-resistant coating 162, and at ¶ 0031, the instant reference teaches that filler or additives may be added to provide grip, texture, strength, and other physical properties. Such fillers and reinforcements can, for example, comprise between 1-60% of a material by weight, tailored to end properties for various applications. Other additives are added as needed, such as for flame- and arc-retardance, adhesion promoters, ultra-violet stabilization, hardness, pigments, and the like. The fire-resistant material at ¶ 0033 discloses KRATON as a coating material. The fire-resistant coating comprises a backside coating portion having an area of at least 4 cm2 [the degree to which the backside is coated can be selected based on the dipping step, ¶ 0032 discloses the coating may be a result of a palm dip, knuckle dip, ¾ dip or a full dip, with at least the ¾ dip expected to result in the coating portion on the backside center portion] and being arranged on the backside center portion and a palm side coating portion 162 [¶ 0032, 0048 and Fig.2B] arranged on the palm side of the glove liner, wherein the palm side coating portion covers at least 90% of the palm side finger portions and at least 90% of the palm side center portion (palm side coating portion fully covers the palm side finger portions and center portion).
Thompson doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein an average coating weight of the backside coating portion is within the range of 5-80% of an average coating weight of the palm side coating portion. As previously discussed, Thompson discloses the general conditions of the claimed range as the coating 162 may be applied with different dip techniques to vary the extent of the coating layers and teaches “the less the fabric liner is covered by a coating…the more ventilated and flexible the glove formed therewith will be”. Thus, more or less of the fabric liner may be covered by coating depending on the desired ventilation and flexibility desired by the wearer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Thompson’s glove liner such that the average coating weight of the backside coating portion is within a range of 5-80% of an average coating weight of the palm side coating portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Thompson et al at ¶ 0033 and 0070 teaches that polymeric, elastomeric or latex used to make coatings disposed on the fabric liner comprises polyisoprene, nitrile-butadiene, polyurethane, polychloroprene, or any combination thereof. The elastomeric composition 162, for at least one exemplary embodiment according to the invention, comprises a nitrile-butadiene composition, such as at least one of KRATON® nitrile-butadiene resins, which have melting points between approximately 400 to 490° F .Also, at least one two-dimensional injection molded component may also be disposed on the cuff 122 for use as, for example, a pull tab 166, a donning/doffing aid, additional protection, decoration, indicia of the type of glove, or to depict a logo or trademark. ".
Kraton is the trade name given to a number of high-performance elastomers manufactured by Kraton Polymers, and used as synthetic replacements for rubber. Kraton polymers offer many of the properties of natural rubber, such as flexibility, high traction, and sealing abilities, but with increased resistance to heat, weathering, and chemicals. See e.g. https ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraton _(polymer).
Regarding the first and part of the second added limitation- first coating arranged on at least said palm side coating portion, which first coating has a total coating weight within the range of 3.3-25 g; and comprising a second coating arranged on at least said backside coating portion, which second coating has a total coating weight within the range of 0.66-10 g;
Thompson et al do not specifically teach the coating weight as sought by Applicant in this modified claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention made to optimize the coating weight used in the composite glove or specific part of the glove, since it has been held that, where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coating weight motivated by the desire to create a suitably strong and flexible glove or portions of the glove that are stronger than other portions.
Regarding the last limitation- wherein the backside coating portion is fully or partly composed of a different fire-resistant material compared to the palm side coating portion; The instant reference teaches that the coating can be a polymeric, elastomeric or latex used to make coatings disposed on the fabric liner comprises polyisoprene, nitrile-butadiene, polyurethane, polychloroprene, or any combination thereof. This provides the latitude of that one or more different coating could be used. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used different compositions of different coatings within the same product. One would have been motivated to do so as the practice of using different coatings on the same glove allows manufacturers to combine specialized properties for enhanced protection, grip, contamination protection and durability. Instead of a single material, a multi-layer or multi-zone approach can provide different benefits exactly where they are needed.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 1, wherein the composition of the fire-resistant material of the backside coating portion and the composition of the fire-resistant material of the palm side coating portion optionally is the same; Applicant is directed to rationale of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 1, wherein said back side coating portion is arranged as a continuous or discontinuous layer, optionally comprising a dot pattern; Applicant is directed to the figures where the coating is shown discontinuously.
Regarding Claim 6, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 1, comprising a first coating arranged on at least said palm side coating portion, which first coating has a total coating weight within a range of 5-20 g/glove of size 10; and comprising a second coating arranged on at least said backside coating portion, which second coating has a total coating weight within the range of 1-8 g/glove of size 10; The instant reference does not specifically provide a coating weight for size 10 glove. Thompson et al do not specifically teach the coating weight as sought by Applicant in this claim for a size 10 glove. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention made to optimize the coating weight used in the composite glove, since it has been held that, where 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed weight is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the coating weight motivated by the desire to create a suitably strong and flexible glove.
Regarding Claim 8, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 1, wherein the fire-resistant material comprises polymers selected from the group consisting of silicon, polyvinylchloride and chloroprene, or a mixture thereof; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0070 of Thompson et al, where they teach that the coatings disposed on the fabric liner comprises polyisoprene, nitrile-butadiene, polyurethane, polychloroprene, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 8, wherein the fire-resistant material comprises 10-90 wt. % chloroprene, or 20-80 wt. % chloroprene, or 30-70 wt. % chloroprene, or 40-60 wt. % chloroprene; Applicant is directed to ¶0070 where Thompson et al teaches comprising between 15-60%.
Regarding Claim 11, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 1, wherein the fire-resistant coating further comprises an additive selected from the group consisting of: pigments, fillers, softeners, surface active agents, accelerators, crosslinkers and vulcanizers, or mixtures thereof; Applicant is directed to ¶ 0031, where the instant reference teaches that Other additives are added as needed, such as for flame- and arc-retardance, adhesion promoters, ultra-violet stabilization, hardness, pigments, and the like may be added.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the glove according to claim 1, wherein the glove liner is formed of a fire-resistant material selected from the group consisting of: para-aramid, meta-aramid, modacrylic, cotton, wool, polyamide and polyester; Applicant is directed to ¶¶ 0022, 0026 and claims 7 and 16 of the instant reference, where they teach that the knitted fabric liner may comprise high performance yarns, such as high-performance polyethylene (HPPE). In some embodiments, yarns comprise cut resistant yarns, such as, but not limited to, steel wire, glass fibers, carbon fibers and filaments, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene’s, nylons, p-aramids, m-aramids, aliphatic nylons, aromatic nylons, NOMEX®, TWARON®, KEVLAR®, DYNEEMA®, SPECTRA®, VECTRAN®, and the like or any composite or blend of the fibers and materials.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp