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 amendments filed with the written response received on November 6, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-6 and 8-13 have been amended; claims 3, 4 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration; and claim 14 has been added. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1, 2, 5-10 and 12-14.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 6 represents an exploded view of components, but has no associated bracket (with an assigned reference numeral) surrounding the explosion.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL to Goal INN (hereinafter “NPL-Goal”) (URL = https://www.tradeinn.com/goalinn/en/rinat-kraken-nrg-pro-goalkeeper-gloves/136562599/p?srsltid=AfmBOoqVOuUG63mTuvOvBRcD_GQ2EDgMzIcwr-WkWsEvnk8BEn7NylaN).
Regarding independent claim 1, NPL-Goal discloses a glove (see annotated Fig. below of NPL-Goal’s glove, titled as “Kraken NRG Pro”), in particular a goalkeeper glove (“Rinat Kraken NRG Pro Goalkeeper Gloves”; Page 1 of NPL document provided herewith; Examiner notes that the phrase “in particular a goalkeeper glove” is a statement of intended use that does not further structurally define the claimed invention in any patentably-distinguishing sense), the glove comprising: a palm portion (see annotated Fig. below, which shows an arbitrary palm portion; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); the boundaries (i.e. dashed-line outline) of the “palm portion” identified in the annotation are merely exemplary only, and could be drawn to be located elsewhere, absent further distinguishing language in the claim) and at least one rolled finger portion (see annotated Fig. below; NPL-Goal discloses that the fingers are “Ergo-Roll” cut (Page 3 of NPL document), indicated the fingers are “rolled”, inasmuch as the claim structurally defines the “rolled” aspect of the finger portions) on at least one of an index finger, a middle finger, a ring finger, and a little finger of the glove (identified in annotated Fig. below is the index finger, which has an arbitrary rolled finger portion), wherein a lower end of the at least one rolled finger portion is connected only to a single member of a motion portion (see annotated Fig. below; only the identified member of the motion portion is connected directly to the lower end of the index finger rolled finger portion; the identified member of the motion portion is, itself, a single member; a single member can include single member sub-components, the sub-components including [1] the front side fabric, [2] the gussets and [3] the seams therebetween; Examiner notes that the claim does not structurally define what is meant by “single member of a motion portion”, and therefore the above interpretation is deemed reasonable, absent further distinguishing language in the claim) being disposed between the palm portion and the at least one rolled finger portion (the identified member is disposed between the identified palm portion and the identified rolled finger portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, NPL-Goal discloses that the at least one rolled finger portion comprises first and second rolled finger portions on two adjacent fingers of the index finger, the middle finger, the ring finger, and the little finger, the lower end of each of the first and second rolled finger portions connected to the single member of the motion portion (as shown in the annotated Fig. above, there are four rolled finger portions (which includes first and second rolled finger portions) in the glove (i.e. the first and second rolled finger portions being associated with the index and middle fingers, for example), which includes two adjacent fingers (i.e. the index and middle fingers are directly adjacent to one another) that are both connected to the identified single member of the motion portion; as noted above, the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 5, NPL-Goal discloses that the at least one rolled finger portion comprises four rolled finger portions comprising a first rolled finger portion on the index finger, a second rolled finger portion on the middle finger, a third rolled finger portion on the ring finger, and a fourth rolled finger portion on the little finger, the lower end of each of the four rolled finger portions connected to the single member of the motion portion (as shown in the annotated Fig. above, there are four rolled finger portions in the glove, which includes the index, middle, ring and little fingers that are all connected to the identified single member of the motion portion).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, NPL-Goal discloses that the palm portion has at least one protrusion extending into at least one of the index finger, the middle finger, the ring finger, and the little finger of the glove (claim 6) (see annotated Fig. above; the identified palm portion has a respective protrusion that extends into at least one of the non-thumb finger portions of the glove), wherein the at least one protrusion extends into an inside of the at least one of the index finger, the middle finger, the ring finger, and the little finger (claim 14) (see annotated Fig. above; the identified protrusions of the palm portion extend into the fingers on the palm side (i.e. an inside of the fingers, as best as “an inside” can be understood)).
Regarding claim 7, NPL-Goal discloses that a further motion portion is disposed between the palm portion and a thumb of the glove (see annotated Fig. above, which identifies a further arbitrary motion portion that exists between the thumb and the palm portion of the glove, inasmuch as the further motion portion has been defined in the claim).
Regarding claim 8, NPL-Goal discloses that the motion portion is made of a textile (“the piece that connects the [fi]ngers and the palm is textile mesh (Page 3 of NPL document); Examiner notes that “textile” is very broad, and can include fabrics, yarns, fibers).
Regarding claim 10, NPL-Goal discloses that the palm portion and the at least one rolled finger portion are made of latex (Page 3 of NPL document discloses that German latex is used for excellent grip (i.e. indicating the palm side of the fingers, where gripping occurs, has the latex; this part of the finger has the identified rolled finger portion); “palm is divided and armed with separate pieces of latex”).
Regarding claim 12, NPL-Goal discloses that the palm portion and the at least one rolled finger portion are made of different materials (while both include latex, as addressed in the rejection of claim 10 above, there are different materials present among the identified palm portion and the identified rolled finger portion, such as the presence of the “1” logo in the palm portion, which is not included in the rolled finger portion, as one example; Page 3 discloses that the palm’s inside includes a nonskid gel applied thereto, which is not disclosed as being on the part associated with the identified rolled finger portion).
Regarding claim 13, NPL-Goal discloses that the at least one rolled finger portion is connected only to the single member of the motion portion (as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above, regarding the lower end of the at least one rolled finger portion, specifically) and a backside portion of the glove (the annotated Fig. above shows how the rolled finger portion also extends to the backside portion of the glove and is connected thereto).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL-Goal as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, NPL-Goal teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. NPL-Goal does not disclose any dimensions of the components of the glove, and it cannot be determined whether the identified textile mesh (i.e. motion portion) has a motion portion thickness that is less than a palm portion thickness of the palm portion and less than a rolled finger portion thickness of the at least one rolled finger portion. However, since the textile mesh is described as providing a function of “allowing for air flow” (Page 3 of NPL document), and since the latex-containing areas (i.e. rolled finger portion and palm portion) are described as the latex overlying a neoprene material (Page 3 of NPL document), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the textile mesh to have a lower thickness than the palm and rolled finger portions, in order to both allow for the desired air flow and increase the flexibility at the finger-to-hand joint area (i.e. a thinner, single layer of textile mesh would be more breathable than a thicker multilayer laminate of latex and neoprene and would also provide increased flexibility for the fingers to bend more easily during use).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (annotated screenshot taken from Page 11 of Remarks; Examiner notes that Pages 12-13 are a continuation of the basis of argument [2] below):
PNG
media_image2.png
450
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding [1], Examiner notes that “member” was not described as having such a definition, but instead “portion” was identified as having such a broad definition.
Regarding [2], Examiner notes that the term “Active cell” was not recited anywhere in the Office Action, nor in the prior art NPL document cited and provided. It appears Applicant is using their own characterization of the product that was described in Applicant’s Specification (Page 1, Lines 20-32) as originally filed. While the provided NPL document does not explicitly describe gussets, Examiner acknowledges that gussets and seams that connect the gussets to the front side fabric appear to at least be illustrated in the figure provided by the NPL. Nevertheless, the claim remains broad enough for the NPL reference product to anticipate the language, absent further structurally-distinguishing features, specifically regarding what constitutes the “single member” and the “motion portion”. Currently, claim 1 recites no details about “a single member of a motion portion”, but only recites that “a lower end of the at least one rolled finger portion is connected only to a single member of a motion portion being disposed between the palm portion and the at least one rolled finger portion”. The only structural details about the “single member of a motion portion” are directed to what is connected to it, and where it is positioned. Since (as explained in the updated ground(s) of rejection in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) section above) a single member can have sub-components and still be “a single member”, then the identified single member in the glove of NPL-Goal can reasonably be interpreted as including sub-components being the front face fabric, gussets and seams therebetween. The lower ends of the at least one rolled finger portion in NPL-Goal would then, in fact, be only connected to “a single member” (i.e. a single member with sub-components) of “a motion portion”. Examiner suggests Applicant further structurally define what is constituted by “a single member of a motion portion” in order to overcome this interpretation. Examiner further notes that, in actuality, Applicant’s own rolled finger portions’ lower ends are “connected to” additional structure than the single member of the motion portion, since the entirety of the glove is made of elements that are all connected together, at least through intermediate structure, if not directly connected. It appears Applicant may better convey the intended limitation if using “only directly connected”, rather than “only connected”, in addition to further defining the structure of what constitutes “a single member of a motion portion”, as best as can be understood.
Accordingly, the claims, as amended, recite language that remains broad enough to be unpatentable over the prior art of record, for the details explained in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 sections above.
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 JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights