DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment and arguments filed on October 8, 2025 have been considered. In view of such the 112-2nd rejection to claims 1-8 has been withdrawn. However, this office action is made FINAL. The Applicant argues the prior art of Miller ‘739 discloses “ what appears to be a kitchen rubber glove used to wash dishes” that is not supported by the reference but rather it discloses a muli-function glove adapted to allow an implement to be easily grasped. Further, the Applicant argues that Miller ‘730 does not disclose the identifier being on inside of the glove. The examiner respectfully disagrees since “ the inner portion” as claimed is met by the prior art of Miller “730 having an inner portion/lower section (62) forming a space that hold an identifier/label (104) with a mark therethrough, subparagraph 44 and as shown in figure 4. Further, “the inner portion” does not define whether it is a surface of the palm/back, lining, etc. and the space holding the label formed between the lower section (62) and glove structural meets limitation of claims 1-8 as disclosed by the prior art of Miller ‘739.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US
2014/0325739). Miller discloses a glove (10) defining an inner portion/lower section (62)
forming a space that holds an identifier/label (104) with a mark therethrough, subparagraph 44
and as shown in figure 4. Further, a transparent window/material (102) made of celluloid protects
the identifier. However, Miller does not show the glove being a baseball glove.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the
claimed invention that the glove of Miller can include but not limited to a baseball glove, etc.
that holds the identifier therein to protect it from being damaged from the elements or depending
on end use thereof.
With regard to claims 3 and 7, subparagraph 44, discloses the transparent window made
of clear celluloid. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date
of the claimed invention that the clear celluloid of Miller can be made but not limited to a plastic
material, etc. as known in the glove making art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the prior art references cited on PTO-892 discloses a glove having an indica thereon.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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 (571) 272-5559. 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.
February 2, 2026 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732