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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 9/5/25. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5 and 8 have been amended; claims 4 and 9 been cancelled. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case there does not appear to be any means for language in the claims and/or language to be considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 AIA
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker US 20150128324 A1 (herein after Baker) in view of Lim US 20210378335 A1 (herein after Lim) and Yen US 20110099852 A1 (herein afterYen).
Regarding claim 1, Baker discloses a work glove comprising: a liner (14, paragraph 0004) configured to the shape of a human hand (as seen in annotated Figures 9A and 9B); at least one pad (12) having a central portion (as seen in annotated Figures 9A and 9B) and a peripheral portion extending outwardly from said central portion (as seen in annotated Figures 9A and 9B), said peripheral portion also having an inner surface facing said liner (as seen in annotated Figure 8B) and an outer surface oppositely disposed from said inner surface and facing away from said liner (as seen in annotated Figure 8B).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Liner)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A work glove.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
277
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (An outer surface oppositely disposed from said inner surface and facing away from said liner.)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A peripheral portion also having an inner surface facing said liner.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
112
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Baker does not specifically disclose said pad having a first shore hardness and a sewing thread passing through and coupling said peripheral portion and said peripheral sewing channel of said at least one pad to said liner.
Lim discloses said pad (12) having a first shore hardness (paragraph 0027 – Lim’s pads being made of rubber at 30A-40A) and a sewing thread passing through (paragraph 0027, as seen in annotated Figure 1A) and coupling said peripheral portion (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) and said at least one pad to said liner (as seen in annotated Figure 1A).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sewing thread.)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
655
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Sewing thread passing through coupling said at least one pad and said liner.)]
Lim is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to protective gloves with incorporated padding.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the glove of Baker by constructing the pad having a first shore hardness and a sewing thread passing through and coupling the peripheral portion and the peripheral sewing channel of the pad to said liner, as taught by Lim in order to secure the pad to the liner. The modification would be a simple modification to obtain predictable results, to better secure the pad to the liner and prevent undo separation of the pad to the liner.
However, Baker and Lim are silent to a peripheral sewing channel overlaying and fused to said outer surface of only said peripheral portion, said peripheral sewing channel having a second shore hardness greater than said first shore hardness of said central portion.
Yen discloses a peripheral sewing channel (216, as seen in Figures 1 and 3, Yen teaches the use of a portion that extends only over the periphery and accommodates the stitched threads that hold the layers of the periphery together with the base) overlaying and fused to said outer surface of only said peripheral portion (paragraphs 0019, 0023 and 0028), said peripheral sewing channel (216, paragraphs 0023 and 0028) having a second shore hardness greater than said first shore hardness of said central portion (paragraph 0003 the shore hardness of leather being 65A-80A, and shore hardness of Plastic capable of being 50A-95A, the second shore hardness would indeed be greater than the shore hardness of the pad made of rubber).
Yen is analogous art to the claimed invention as they relate to methods of securely coupling articles that are subject to bending and flexing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the coupling pad to the liner of Baker and Lim, by constructing the pad having a peripheral sewing channel overlaying and fused to said outer surface of only said peripheral portion, said peripheral sewing channel having a second shore hardness greater than said first shore hardness of said central portion, as taught by Yen in order to prevent the thread from tearing. The modification would be a simple modification to ensure the pad does not separate from the liner under continued use, flexing and stretching. The peripheral sewing channel overlay acts as a welt for the pad to provide additional durability to the gloves padded regions.
Regarding claim 2, the modified work glove of the combined references discloses wherein said peripheral sewing channel (16, paragraph 0042 of Baker) includes a sewing portion (as seen in annotated Figure 8B of Baker) and a peripheral rim (as seen in annotated Figure 8A of Baker) extending above said sewing portion (as seen in annotated Figure 8B), said peripheral rim (as seen in annotated Figure 8B of Baker) being outboard of said sewing portion (as seen in annotated Figures 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D of Baker).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Peripheral rim)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A sewing portion.)][AltContent: textbox (Central portion)]
PNG
media_image4.png
698
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Baker US 20150128324 A1
Regarding claim 3, the modified work glove of the combined references discloses wherein said peripheral sewing channel (as seen in annotated figure 1A of Lim) further includes an inner groove (16, paragraph 0042 of Baker) extending from said sewing portion (as seen in annotated figure 1A of Lim) oppositely disposed from said peripheral rim (as seen in annotated Figure 8A and 8B of Baker).
Regarding claim 5, Baker discloses a work glove comprising: a liner (14) configured to the shape of a human hand (paragraph 0047 and 0055, as seen in annotated Figures 9A and 9B); a pad (Abstract,12 paragraph 0042) having a pliable padding portion (12 Abstract, paragraph 0030) with a central portion and a peripheral portion extending from said central portion (as seen in annotated Figures 8B, 9A and 9B), said pad also having a pad backing portion coupled to said peripheral portion of said pliable padding portion (12, Abstract, paragraph 0018 and 0024).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A pad backing portion coupled to said peripheral portion of said pliable padding portion.)]
PNG
media_image5.png
103
317
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Baker does not specifically disclose said pad backing portion, and a sewing thread passing through said peripheral portion and said liner to couple said pad to said liner.
Lim discloses said pad backing portion (paragraph 0050, as seen in annotated Figure 1A), and a sewing thread (paragraph 0027) passing through said peripheral portion (as seen in annotated Figure 1A) and said liner to couple said pad to said liner (as seen in annotated Figure 1A).
Lim is analogous art to the claimed invention in that it relates to protective gloves with incorporated padding.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the glove of Baker by constructing the pad backing portion with a sewing thread passing through said peripheral channel portion and said liner to couple said pad to said liner, as taught by Lim in order to better secure the resilient pads to the base material and provide better protection when worn as well as preventing the pads from separating from the glove during wear. The modification would be a simple modification to improve the protection capabilities of the glove by providing stable attachment base for the pads to be sewn to.
Lim is silent to said pad backing portion being of a material that is more tear resistant than said pliable padding portion. a peripheral channel portion positioned outwardly from said pliable padding portion,
Yen discloses said pad backing portion (paragraph 0003, 0023) being of a material that is more tear resistant (paragraph 0003, 0023 – leather being capable of being more tear resistant than the rubber pad) than said pliable padding portion (leather being capable of being more tear resistant than the rubber pad).
Yen is analogous art to the claimed invention as they relate to methods of securely coupling articles that are subject to bending and flexing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the invention to have modified the coupling pad to the liner of Baker and Lim, by constructing the pad backing portion being of a material that is more tear resistant than said pliable padding portion, as taught by Yen in order to prevent the pad from separating from the liner. The modification would be a simple modification to ensure the stitching does not tear from the liner under continued use, flexing and stretching; providing additional durability to the gloves padded regions.
Regarding claim 6, the modified work glove of the combined references discloses wherein said peripheral channel portion includes a sewing portion (as seen in annotated figure 1A of Lim) and a peripheral rim (as seen in annotated Figure 8A and 8B of Baker) extending above said sewing portion (as seen in annotated figure 1A of Lim), said peripheral rim (as seen in annotated Figure 8A and 8B of Baker) being outboard of said sewing portion (as seen in annotated Figure 8A and 8B of Baker).
Regarding claim 7, the modified work glove of the combined references discloses wherein said peripheral channel portion (as seen in annotated Figure 8A and 8B of Baker) further includes an inner groove (16, paragraph 0042 of Baker) extending from said sewing portion (as seen in annotated figure 1A of Lim) oppositely disposed from said peripheral rim (as seen in annotated Figure 8A and 8B of Baker).
Regarding claim 8, the modified work glove of the combined references discloses said pliable padding portion (Abstract, 12 of Baker), the pliable padding portion has a select first shore hardness (16, paragraph 0027of Lim – the central portion having a hardness/softness of about 30-40 shore), and wherein said pad backing portion has a select second shore hardness greater than said first shore hardness (paragraph 0027 and claims 9 and 15 of Lim- the central portions/pads are stitched on to a substrate of the outer fabric layer 12 and/or the polymeric coating 14 of Lim, as seen in annotated Figure 1A of Lim. The outer fabric layer 12 of Lim being made from a cut resistant yarn which comprises, for example, high performance poly ethylene (HPPE), steel fibers, glass fiber and combinations thereof to provide cut resistance. The material of the outer surface made of high performance poly ethylene (HPPE), steel fibers, glass fiber would have a greater shore hardness than the shore hardness of the central portion which is made of the thermoplastic rubber).
Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not convincing. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards structural elements included in the amended claims and thus do not apply to the combinations of references used to teach the limitations of the amended claims in the current rejection and/or the manner in which prior art has been applied in the current rejection. In view of Applicant's amendments, the search has been updated, and a rejection on the amended claims is applied above.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments regarding the combined references do not teach the applicants two-layer peripheral region, with one layer only covering the peripheral region. Yen is used to teach this method of attachment. The method is commonly used in footwear to ensure the stitching is both protected and secure in regions that endure a lot of flexing and strain. Yen teaches the overlay made of many different materials to include leather and plastic both being capable of protecting the stitched attachment line and preventing excessive twisting and stretching that might cause the threads to break and the pad to separate from the under layer/liner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M FERREIRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5916, fax number (571) 270-6916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:00 am- 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS, at (571) 272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Catherine M. Ferreira/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights