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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 20160309815 (Hull).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, ‘815 discloses: a glove (116, fig. 11), comprising: a wrist region; a palm region extending outwardly from the wrist region and defining a palm plane (shown and inherent to glove 116 in fig. 11); at least one digit region extending outwardly from the palm region and terminating at a terminal end (shown and inherent to glove 116 in fig. 11), wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region extends between the terminal end and the palm region and is parallel to the palm plane (shown and inherent to glove 116 in fig. 11); and a surface treatment formed on the palm region and/or the at least one digit region (textured diamond pattern in figs. 11-13 are “formed” on the glove palm and digit base layer surfaces), the surface treatment having a set of projections that extends outwardly from the palm region and/or the at least one digit region (Fig. 13 shows close-up view of textured diamond extending outwardly) and wherein the glove is fabricated entirely from one of nitrile, nitrile rubber, or natural rubber and is disposable (‘815 states explicitly, “Layer 32 may be formed of nitrile rubber. In particular, layer 32 may be formed of a nitrile rubber that is free of or essentially free of zinc and/or sulfur and/or accelerators [par. 37, detailed description].” And further “Glove 116 may be substantially identical to any of the gloves 1, 50, 80 or 100 particularly as relating to the shape and features of these gloves [par. 64, detailed description].”; Even further, nothing precludes the glove 116 from be disposed of, therefore it is functionally capable of “disposal” and “disposable” as functionally claimed).
Further, ‘815 discloses: each projection of the set of projections further comprises: a base operably engaged with the palm region or the at least one digit region; and a tip extending outwardly from the base and spaced apart from the palm region or the at least one digit region (shown in fig. 11, textured raised diamonds inherently have a base operably engaged to the glove surface and a height that does extend outwardly as claimed and any number or grouping of raised diamonds shown can be separately addressed as ‘sets of projections’).
Even further, ‘815 discloses: wherein each projection of the set of projections define a hollow space [see annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image1.png
409
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lastly regarding new limitations in claim 20, ‘815 discloses: wherein each projection of the set of projections define a hollow space, wherein an interior wall of each projection of the set of projections is configured to contact a person's skin [see annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image2.png
372
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ‘815 discloses: each projection of the set of projections extends outwardly along an axis that is non-parallel to the palm plane of the palm region (shown in fig. 11, textured raised diamond pattern inherently has a height that does extend outwardly as claimed and any number of the raised diamonds can be separately addressed as ‘sets of projections’).
Regarding claim 3, ‘815 discloses: each projection of the set of projections extends outwardly along an axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region (shown in fig. 11, textured raised diamond pattern inherently has a height that does extend outwardly as claimed and any number of the raised diamonds can be separately addressed as ‘sets of projections’).
Regarding claim 5, ‘815 discloses: a recess defined between at least two projections of the set of projections (shown in fig. 11, textured raised diamonds inherently have a base operably engaged to the glove surface and a height that does extend outwardly as claimed and any number or grouping of raised diamonds shown can be separately addressed as ‘sets of projections’); wherein the glove is adapted to receive an object inside of the recess while said objects contacts one or both of the at least two projections and the base inside of the recess (all claimed structure is disclosed, it follows that any functional capability is also disclosed; further the recesses shown can function to receive an object as functionally required in claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, ‘815 discloses: each projection of the set of projections defines the same diameter (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 16, ‘815 discloses: the surface treatment is provided on one of an index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region, and a little finger region of the at least one digit region and provided on a thumb region of the at least one digit region (textured raised diamonds shown clearly in fig. 11 located in the claimed regions).
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by US 20160309815 (Hull) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20160309815 (Hull) in view of US 7378043 (Hassan et al.).
Regarding claim 21, the recitation; “glove is formed by engaging a production mold with a glove material and each projection is formed from a ball bearing located on the production mold.”; is a product by process limitation.
The MPEP 2113 is clear:
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
II. ONCE A PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS FOUND AND A PRIOR ART REJECTION IS MADE, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN NONOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
III. A REJECTION BASED ALTERNATIVELY ON 35 U.S.C. 102 OR 103 FOR PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURTS
“[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Instantly claim 21 has no structural limitations further than those of intervening claim 1 as noted above. Therefore ‘815 discloses all of claim 21 absent the processing steps recited. In that respect, the product claimed is identical to the disclosed product. The burden is shifted to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a non-obvious materially different result arising from the claimed processing steps.
In the alternative, if not conceded as fully disclosed ‘043 is referenced.
‘043 does explicitly teach,
“Latex gloves with geometrically defined surface structure provide the ability to vary the grip according to the size, shape and distribution of discrete coagulant particles that are attached to the polymeric coagulant coating applied to the smooth former used for dipping the glove. The process can use water-soluble, partially water-soluble, or water-insoluble discrete, coagulant particles. These discrete coagulant particles are embedded by a dry powder coating process onto a tacky, water-soluble, polymeric, coagulant coating or film built up on the smooth former. When the surface texture is applied selectively to specific areas of the glove external surface, the polymeric coagulant coating holds discrete coagulant particles in the palm and finger areas before the former with embedded discrete coagulant particles is dipped into the synthetic or natural aqueous latex emulsion to form the latex film. The ability to obtain precisely shaped and distributed concave indentations or suction cup shapes on the external gripping surface of a dipped latex film arises from the embedded discrete coagulant particles held in precise locations by the water-soluble polymeric coagulant coating or film. After the latex film of the glove is cured, the glove is inverted to expose the discrete coagulant particles that are dissolved by a water wash, preferably a hot water wash, or by an appropriate solvent wash.
Generally stated, the present invention provides a method of achieving precisely defined suction cups or indentations with preferably angular shapes with controlled size and distribution on the external grip surface of the geometrically textured glove using an in-line manufacturing process that is akin to most commercial glove manufacturing processes…[pars. 10-11].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the glove manufacturing process of ‘815 to use geometrically defined surface structures, such as the ball bearings claimed, on the glove former of a glove production process to provide precisely defined indentations/hollow spaces of controlled size and distribution to affect the external grip surface of a glove as desired.
Claim(s) 7-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160309815 (Hull) in view of US 7788737 (Baker et al.).
Regarding claims 7, 9, 10 and 12, ‘815 discloses: a first group of projections of the set of projections, wherein each projection of the first group of projections defines a first diameter; and a second group of projections of the set of projections, wherein each projection of the second group of projections defines a second diameter; a third group of projections of the set of projections, wherein each projection of the third group of projections defines a third diameter (shown in fig. 11, textured raised diamond pattern inherently has a height that does extend outwardly as claimed and any number of the raised diamonds can be separately addressed as ‘sets of projections’ and ‘groups of projections’).
‘815 also teaches explicitly, “Whereas gloves 1 and 50 typically have an outer surface that is smooth in its entirety, glove 80 may have an outer surface that may have smooth portions and textured portions. In the sample embodiment, the outer surface of glove 80 has one or more smooth outer surfaces 94, one or more lighter textured outer surfaces 96 that are coarser than smooth surface 94, and one or more even coarser textured outer surfaces 98 that are coarser than smooth surface 94 and lighter textured surface 96 [par. 50, detailed description].”. This recitation makes clear that the prior art recognizes the use of smooth portions on a glove and textured portions on a glove, as well as, textured surfaces that have different dimensions (‘even coarser’ textures having different dimensions than both of ‘coarse’ textures and ‘smooth’ surfaces); for providing different grip properties on different areas of a glove.
‘815 does not disclose the second diameter being greater than the first diameter; the specific diameters recited in claims 9 or 12; nor the third diameter being greater than the second diameter.
With regards to changes in shape and proportion MPEP 2144.04 and with respect to claimed dimensional ranges MPEP 2144.05 states:
Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”).
Further, ‘737 teaches explicitly, “The foamed mixture, or another substance, as described herein, may also be applied to any portion(s) of the outer surface 12 of each glove 10 via a plurality of "dots" having a certain limited area of space, as best shown in FIG. 5. Desirably, each protective dot 30 is spaced-apart from every other dot 30 to provide an area of increased protection against cuts and abrasion, while still maintaining flexibility, dexterity and breathability of that area of the glove 10. That is, there are a plurality of areas 32 surrounded by dots 30 which have no coating. This non-continuous surface 22 provides a non-continuous coverage via a plurality of dots 30 which provide these features.
It will be understood that the plurality of dots 30 may be provided in any form or configuration and/or any combination of configuration(s). That is, the generally round, semi-hemispherical plurality of dots 30 shown in the present embodiment are but one non-limiting example. Further, the plurality of areas 32 also may form any single or combination of configuration(s), and the present example is intended as a non-limiting example.
The plurality of dots 30 may be formed from a number of different materials, including, but not by way of limitation, nylon, vinyl, plastic, such as polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylonitrile latex, polyvinyl chloride latex, polyurethane latex, natural rubber, and so forth. Each of the plurality of dots 30 is desirably about 1 to about 5 mm in diameter. More desirably, each dot is about 1 to about 3 mm in diameter. Desirably, each dot has a height of about 0.5 to about 2 mm [par. 11-13].”.
This citation shows that ‘737 explicitly recognizes the highly variable nature of the form (size is part of ‘form); configuration and/or any combination of form and/or configuration to provide the desired form and configuration of dot coverage on the surfaces of the glove. The dots explicitly made of various materials including natural and synthetic rubber/latex that are inherently high friction/grip enhancing materials.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claim 8, ‘737 teaches: an arrangement between the first group of projections and the second group of projections is uniform or randomized (any arrangement including the dot arrangement shown in fig. 5 discloses uniform or randomized arrangement).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claim 11, ‘737 teaches: an arrangement among the first group of projections, the second group of projections, and the third group of projections is uniform or randomized (any arrangement of any of the numerous [i.e. more than three] potential groupings of dots shown in fig. 5 discloses uniform or randomized arrangement).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claim 13, ‘737 teaches: an inner surface defined along the palm region and the at least one digit region and having the surface treatment; and an outer surface defined along the palm region and the at least one digit region and being opposite to the inner surface and being free from having the surface treatment (shown clearly in figs. 1-4; there are “dots 30” and a lack of dots on various parts of the whole inner surface and there are various parts/surfaces of the outer/back of the glove that are free of “dots 30”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claim 14, ‘737 teaches: an inner surface defined along the palm region and the at least one digit region and having the surface treatment; and an outer surface defined along the palm region and the at least one digit region and being opposite to the inner surface and having the surface treatment (shown clearly in figs. 1-4; there are “dots 30” and a lack of dots on various parts of the whole inner surface and there are various parts/surfaces of the outer/back of the glove that are include “dots 30”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, ‘737 teaches: the surface treatment is provided on one of an index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region, and a little finger region of the at least one digit region and provided on a thumb region of the at least one digit region (dots 30 and 14 which are disclosed as potentially made of dots 30 in par. 11 and shown clearly in fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, ‘737 teaches: at least one surface treatment gap defined between the palm region and the at least one digit/thumb region (numerous gaps/lack of dots are shown on all surfaces including palm and thumb/digit regions; figs. 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Regarding claims 19, ‘737 teaches: the at least one surface treatment gap further comprises: a second surface treatment gap defined between the palm region and one or more of an index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region, and a little finger region of the at least one digit region (numerous gaps/lack of dots are shown on all surfaces including palm and index/middle/ring/little/thumb/digit regions; figs. 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of glove production and design prior to filing the invention to modify the surface treatment of ‘815 to the surface treatment as taught by ‘737 to be in any desired form (diameter) and configuration (arrangement) to provide a glove surface with desired grip enhancing surface treatment coverage to provide the glove with the desired level of the surface treatment’s functional capabilities, including higher friction/grip enhancement.
Response to Arguments
Previous 112 rejections are removed, they were an Examiner error from OCR text recognition of the original claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Assertions that the ‘815 do not fully disclose new claim amendments are clearly refuted above.
‘815 does fully disclose all of cancelled claim 4 limitations that are now incorporated into independent claims 1 and 20, as noted above.
‘815 does fully disclose the new limitations in claims 1 and 20, as noted above and repeated here:
Regarding claims 1 and 20, ‘815 discloses: a glove (116, fig. 11), comprising: a wrist region; a palm region extending outwardly from the wrist region and defining a palm plane (shown and inherent to glove 116 in fig. 11); at least one digit region extending outwardly from the palm region and terminating at a terminal end (shown and inherent to glove 116 in fig. 11), wherein a longitudinal axis of the at least one digit region extends between the terminal end and the palm region and is parallel to the palm plane (shown and inherent to glove 116 in fig. 11); and a surface treatment formed on the palm region and/or the at least one digit region (textured diamond pattern in figs. 11-13 are “formed” on the glove palm and digit base layer surfaces), the surface treatment having a set of projections that extends outwardly from the palm region and/or the at least one digit region (Fig. 13 shows close-up view of textured diamond extending outwardly) and wherein the glove is fabricated entirely from one of nitrile, nitrile rubber, or natural rubber and is disposable (‘815 states explicitly, “Layer 32 may be formed of nitrile rubber. In particular, layer 32 may be formed of a nitrile rubber that is free of or essentially free of zinc and/or sulfur and/or accelerators [par. 37, detailed description].” And further “Glove 116 may be substantially identical to any of the gloves 1, 50, 80 or 100 particularly as relating to the shape and features of these gloves [par. 64, detailed description].”; Even further, nothing precludes the glove 116 from be disposed of, therefore it is functionally capable of “disposal” and “disposable” as functionally claimed).
Further, ‘815 discloses: each projection of the set of projections further comprises: a base operably engaged with the palm region or the at least one digit region; and a tip extending outwardly from the base and spaced apart from the palm region or the at least one digit region (shown in fig. 11, textured raised diamonds inherently have a base operably engaged to the glove surface and a height that does extend outwardly as claimed and any number or grouping of raised diamonds shown can be separately addressed as ‘sets of projections’).
Even further, ‘815 discloses: wherein each projection of the set of projections define a hollow space [see annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image3.png
511
809
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lastly regarding new limitations in claim 20, ‘815 discloses: wherein each projection of the set of projections define a hollow space, wherein an interior wall of each projection of the set of projections is configured to contact a person's skin [see annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image4.png
465
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
No other arguments or amendments are offered.
The rejection is considered to be proper.
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 ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached 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 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
