DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed December 9, 2025 in which claims 1-8, 10, and 17-20 are presented for examination and claims 9 and 11-16 are canceled.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites the limitation “a person's hand,” which should be amended to recite “the person's hand” for purposes of proper antecedent basis and for consistency with subsequent limitations such as “the person's thumb” (claim 1, line 9).
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites the limitation “a person's hand,” which should be amended to recite “the person's hand” for purposes of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 43 recites the limitation “thumb crutch,” which upon information and belief should be amend to recite “thumb crotch.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the rolled cuff is shorter than the liner such that the liner is exposed.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because although it is believed to be technically true it is not believed to accurately describe the nature of the claimed configuration. The rolled cuff is shorter than the liner because the liner is a complete glove-shaped garment configured to cover the entire hand and at least portions of the wrist and forearm of the wearer while the rolled cuff is a narrow band limited to a lower distal edge of the glove and configured to be disposed over a limited area of the wrist and/or forearm of a wearer without covering any portions of the hand of the wearer. However, upon information and belief, portions of the liner are exposed because the liner is configured to extend beyond a lower distal edge of the glove, which includes the rolled cuff, not merely because the rolled cuff is shorter than the liner. Clarification is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2008/0022436 Hull (Hull 436) in view of USPN 9,241,518 Patkov.
To claim 1, Hull 436 discloses in combination (10) (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0014-0021):
a liner (22) adapted to closely conform to a person's hand (see Figures 3-5; para. 0017); and
a glove (20) selectively placeable over the liner and removable from over the liner wherein a portion of the glove is adapted to cover a long sleeve shirt (see Figures 2-5; paras. 0016-0021; functional; it is respectfully noted that the combination will fit differently sized hands/wrists/arms and long sleeve shirts in different manners and that an intended relative position of the combination or portions of the combination to the wearer’s hand/wrist/arm anatomy and/or long sleeve shirt is functional and not patentably significant), and wherein the glove comprises:
a body defining an interior cavity adapted to receive the person's hand therein (see especially Figures 4-5; para. 0021), wherein the body is fabricated from one or more of nitrile and natural rubber (para. 0016);
wherein the body includes:
a thumb region (42) adapted to receive the person's thumb therein (see Figures 1-2; para. 0016);
an index finger region (40) adapted to receive the person's index finger therein, wherein the index finger region has a first side that together with a first side of the thumb region defines a thumb crotch therebetween (see Figures 1-2; para. 0016);
a wrist region adapted to receive the person's wrist therein (see Figures 1-2; para. 0016);
an interior surface bounding and defining the interior cavity, and wherein the interior surface is one of smooth and flocked (see Figures 4-5; para. 0017; interior surface of glove 20 will possess at least some degree of smoothness);
an imaginary first plane (Y) extending generally along the first side of the index finger region, downwardly beyond the thumb crotch, and through the thumb region (annotated Figure 2, see below; para. 0017);
an imaginary second plane (X) oriented at right angles to the imaginary first plane and extending along a narrowest width of the wrist region (annotated Figure 2; para. 0017), wherein the imaginary first plane and imaginary second plane intersect one another at an intersection region (I) (annotated Figure 2; para. 0017); and
an imaginary third plane (CP) oriented parallel to the imaginary first plane and at right angles to the imaginary second plane, said imaginary third plane passing through the narrowest width of the wrist region (annotated Figure 2; para. 0017);
wherein the imaginary second plane intersects a first side of the wrist region at a transition region (T) (annotated Figure 2; para. 0017); and wherein the transition region is located outwardly from the intersection region in a direction moving away from the imaginary third plane and towards the imaginary first plane (annotated Figure 2; para. 0017).
PNG
media_image1.png
928
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hull 436 does not disclose a combination wherein a portion of the liner is exposed below an end of the glove.
However, Patkov teaches in combination (10g) (see Figures 5A-5C; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32): a liner (628) adapted to closely conform to a person's hand and a glove selectively placeable over the liner and removable from over the liner wherein a portion the liner is exposed below an end of the glove (see Figures 5A-5B; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32).
Hull 436 and Patkov teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the combination of Hull 436 such that a portion of the liner is exposed below an end of the glove as taught by Patkov because Patkov teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides comfort and stability on the wearer’s hand (col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an exposed portion of the liner would provide the wearer with an easy-to-grip portion of the liner to grasp while the glove is extracted from the liner, thereby preventing the liner from being inadvertently removed from the wearer’s hand during removal of the glove in the event that the wearer wishes to remove the glove but continue wearing the liner. One of ordinary skill would further recognize that such a configuration would be particularly useful when the hand the wearer is using to remove the glove from the liner is itself covered with a glove.
To claim 2, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the glove is of a different shape and size relative to the liner (see Figures 3-5 and paras. 0016-0017 of Hull 436; see Figures 5A-5B and col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32 of Patkov).
To claim 3, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the liner is fabricated from cotton (para. 0017 of Hull 436).
To claim 4, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) teaches a combination as recited in claim 1, above.
The modified invention of Hull 436 does not expressly teach a combination wherein the body of the glove has a thickness of from about 4 mils up to about 15 mils, wherein the thickness is measured between the interior surface and an exterior surface of the body of the glove.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the glove of the modified invention of Hull 436 such that the body of the glove has a thickness of from about 4 mils up to about 15 mils as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 5, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein he wrist region terminates at a bottom end and the body, and the wrist region has a first length measured from the bottom end to the intersection region and wherein when the glove is laid on a flat surface, wherein the first length is adapted to cause the wrist region to extend over the long sleeve shirt worn by the person in a cooled meat processing environment (see Figures 1-3 and para. 0021 of Hull 436; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32 of Patkov; functional).
The modified invention of Hull 436 does not expressly teach a combination wherein the first length is between 79 mm and 97 mm (it is respectfully noted that no reference is likely to explicitly teach a “first length is between 79 mm and 97 mm” because that length is based on dimensions including the “intersection region,” which is a term created by Applicant for the instant invention rather than any type of standard that other references would feasibly cite).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the glove of the modified invention of Hull 436 such that the first length is between 79 mm and 97 mm as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “wherein the first length is adapted to cause the wrist region to extend over a long sleeve shirt worn by the person in a cooled meat processing environment” is functional and dependent on various factors such as the size of the particular glove/liner combination relative to the length of the wearer’s hand/wrist/arm anatomy as well as the length of the particular long sleeve shirt. However, this limitation is being treated as merely being very broad and functional and/or a statement of intended use and not patentably significant as opposed to being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). As the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) teaches the structure of the combination as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the combination of the modified invention of Hull 436 to perform the recited function.
To claim 6, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the wrist region terminates at a bottom end and the body, and the wrist region has a second length measured from the intersection region to the thumb crotch and wherein when the glove is laid on a flat surface (see Figures 1-3 and para. 0021 of Hull 436; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32 of Patkov).
The modified invention of Hull 436 does not expressly teach a combination wherein the second length is between 80 mm and 94 mm (it is respectfully noted that no reference is likely to explicitly teach a “second length is between 80 mm and 94 mm” because that length is based on dimensions including the “intersection region,” which is a term created by Applicant for the instant invention rather than any type of standard that other references would feasibly cite).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the glove of the modified invention of Hull 436 such that the second length is between 80 mm and 94 mm as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 7, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the interior cavity of the glove is adapted to be in contact with an exterior surface of the liner, when worn (see especially Figures 4-5 and paras. 0017-0021 of Hull 436; see Figures 5A-5B and col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32 of Patkov).
To claim 8, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the wrist region is adapted to be spaced a distance away from the person's wrist (see Figures 1-3 and para. 0021 of Hull 436).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull 436 in view of Patkov (as applied to claim 1, above) in further view of USPN 10,993,488 Chou.
To claim 10, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Patkov, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the body of the glove includes a finger region comprising the index finger region, a middle finger region, a ring finger region, and a little finger region (annotated Figure 2 of Hull 436).
The modified invention of Hull 436 does not expressly teach a combination wherein the glove is an ambidextrous glove where the thumb region, the index finger region, the middle finger region, the ring finger region, and the little finger region are aligned along an imaginary common plane; and wherein the imaginary second plane is oriented at right angles to the imaginary common plane.
However, Chou teaches a glove (10) (see Figures 1 and 4-5; col. 1, lines 16-18; col. 4, lines 13-16) wherein the glove is an ambidextrous glove where the thumb region, the index finger region, the middle finger region, the ring finger region, and the little finger region are aligned along an imaginary common plane; and wherein the imaginary second plane is oriented at right angles to the imaginary common plane (see Figures 1 and 4-5; col. 1, lines 16-18; col. 4, lines 13-16).
The modified invention of Hull 436 and Chou teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the glove to be ambidextrous as taught by Chou because Chou teaches that this configuration is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that ambidextrous gloves are timesaving for a wearer because the wearer need not identify dedicated “left” and “right” gloves prior to donning.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull 436 in view of US Pub No. 2018/0103701 Hull (Hull 701) and in further view of Patkov and US Pub No. 2012/0036612 Hull (Hull 612).
To claim 17, Hull 436 discloses in combination (10) (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0014-0021):
a liner (22) adapted to closely conform to a person's hand (see Figures 3-5; para. 0017); and
a glove (20) selectively placeable over the liner and removable from over the liner (see Figures 2-5; paras. 0016-0021), and wherein the glove comprises:
a body defining an interior cavity adapted to receive a person's hand and wrist therein (see especially Figures 4-5; para. 0021), wherein the body is fabricated from one or more of nitrile and natural rubber (para. 0016), and wherein the glove is reusable (paras. 0006, 0021);
wherein the body includes:
a palm region and a back region (see Figure 3) opposed to the palm region (see Figure 2);
a thumb region (42) and a finger region (40,38,36,34) extending outwardly from the palm region and the back region (see Figures 1-3; para. 0016), wherein the finger region includes an index finger region (40) having a first side that together with a first side of the thumb region defines a thumb crotch therebetween (annotated Figure 2, see above; para. 0016);
a wrist region extending downwardly from the palm region and the back region, said wrist region having a narrowest width that extends between a first side of the wrist region and a second side of the wrist region (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016);
an interior surface bounding and defining the interior cavity (see Figures 4-5; para. 0017);
an imaginary first plane (Y) extending generally along the first side of the index finger region, downwardly beyond the thumb crotch, and through the thumb region (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016);
and an imaginary second plane (X) oriented at right angles to the imaginary first plane and extending along the narrowest width of the wrist region (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016); wherein the imaginary second plane intersects the imaginary first plane at an intersection region (I) (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016);
an imaginary third plane (CP) is oriented parallel to the imaginary first plane and at right angles to the imaginary second plane, said imaginary third plane passing through the narrowest width of the wrist region (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016);
wherein the imaginary second plane intersects the wrist region's first side at a transition region (T) (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016); and wherein the transition region is located on an opposite side of the imaginary first plane from the imaginary third plane (annotated Figure 2; para. 0016);
an exterior surface including a front and a back of the glove (see Figures 1-3; para. 0016); and
wherein the wrist region terminates at a bottom end and the body has a first length measured from the bottom end to the intersection region and a second length measured from the intersection region to the thumb crotch (see Figures 1-3; para. 0016), wherein the first length is adapted to cause the wrist region to extend over a long sleeve shirt worn by the person in a cooled meat processing environment (see Figures 1-3; para. 0016; functional/intended use; it is respectfully noted that the combination will fit differently sized hands/wrists/arms and long sleeve shirts in different manners and that an intended relative position of the combination or portions of the combination to the wearer’s hand/wrist/arm anatomy and/or long sleeve shirt is functional and not patentably significant).
Hull 436 does not teach a combination wherein the exterior surface of the body is of a first color and the interior surface of the body is of a second color that is different from the first color or a rolled cuff extends outwardly from the wrist region in a direction opposite to the palm region.
However, Hull 701 teaches a glove (see especially Figures 7A-7B; paras. 0098-0104) wherein the exterior surface (112) of the body is of a first color and the interior surface (90) of the body is of a second color that is different from the first color (para. 0101) and a rolled cuff extends outwardly from the wrist region in a direction opposite to the palm region (annotated Figure 7A, see below; paras. 0101-0102).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modified invention of Hull 436 and Hull 701 teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the exterior and interior surfaces of the body of the glove of the modified invention of Hull 436 to be different colors as taught by Hull 701 because Hull 701 teaches that this configuration is known in the art and enables a user to readily and easily identify a glove failure such as a rip, tear, slice, or other rupture/failure in the exterior surface (para. 0102).
The modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Hull 701, as detailed above) does not teach a combination wherein a portion of the liner is exposed below an end of the glove.
However, Patkov teaches in combination (10g) (see Figures 5A-5C; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32): a liner (628) adapted to closely conform to a person's hand and a glove selectively placeable over the liner and removable from over the liner wherein a portion the liner is exposed below an end of the glove (see Figures 5A-5B; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32).
The modified invention of Hull 436 and Patkov teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the combination of the modified invention of Hull 436 such that a portion of the liner is exposed below an end of the glove as taught by Patkov because Patkov teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides comfort and stability on the wearer’s hand (col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an exposed portion of the liner would provide the wearer with an easy-to-grip portion of the liner to grasp while the glove is extracted from the liner, thereby preventing the liner from being inadvertently removed from the wearer’s hand during removal of the glove in the event that the wearer wishes to remove the glove but continue wearing the liner. One of ordinary skill would further recognize that such a configuration would be particularly useful when the hand the wearer is using to remove the glove from the liner is itself covered with a glove.
The modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Hull 701 of Patkov, as detailed above) does not expressly disclose a combination having a thickness in a range of from about 4 mils up to about 15 mils, wherein the thickness is measured from an exterior surface of the body to an interior surface thereof, wherein the interior surface is flocked, or wherein texture is provided on gripping surfaces of each of the front and the back, and wherein the pattern of texture on the front is identical to the pattern of texture on the back.
However, Hull 612 teaches a combination (see Figures 1-6; paras. 0005 and 0018-Appendix F) comprising a body having a thickness in a range of from about 4 mils up to about 15 mils wherein the thickness is measured from an exterior surface of the body to an interior surface thereof (Appendix F), wherein the interior surface is flocked (para. 0025), and wherein texture is provided on gripping surfaces of each of the front and the back, and wherein the pattern of texture on the front is identical to the pattern of texture on the back (see Figures 1-2; paras. 0020 and 0022).
The modified invention of Hull 436 and Hull 612 teach analogous inventions in the field of gloves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the glove of the modified invention of Hull 436 to include flocking and texture as taught by Hull 612 because Hull 612 teaches that flocking makes the glove more comfortable to wear (para. 0025), and that patterns of texture provide grip (paras. 0020 and 0022). It is further respectfully noted that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07) and that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “wherein the first length is adapted to cause the wrist region to extend over a long sleeve shirt worn by the person in a cooled meat processing environment” is functional and dependent on various factors such as the size of the particular glove/liner combination relative to the length of the wearer’s hand/wrist/arm anatomy as well as the length of the particular long sleeve shirt. However, this limitation is being treated as merely being very broad and functional and/or a statement of intended use and not patentably significant as opposed to being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). As the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of Hull 701, Patkov, and Hull 612, as detailed above) teaches the structure of the combination as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the combination of the modified invention of Hull 436 to perform the recited function.
To claim 18, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of view of Hull 701, Patkov, and Hull 612, as detailed above) teaches a combination as recited in claim 17, above.
The modified invention of Hull 436 does not expressly teach a combination wherein when the glove is laid on a flat surface, a bottom end of the wrist region is of a width between 127 mm and 150 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the glove of the modified invention of Hull 436 such that when the glove is laid on a flat surface, a bottom end of the wrist region is of a width between 127 mm and 150 mm as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 19, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of view of Hull 701, Patkov, and Hull 612, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the liner includes a wrist region and the width of the liner at its wrist region is smaller than the width of the glove at its wrist region (see Figures 1-3 and paras. 0016-0021 of Hull 436).
To claim 20, insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner, the modified invention of Hull 436 (i.e., Hull 436 in view of view of Hull 701, Patkov, and Hull 612, as detailed above) further teaches a combination wherein the rolled cuff displays a second color of the interior surface and wherein the rolled cuff is shorter than the liner such that the liner is exposed (see annotated Figure 7A and paras. 0101-0102 of Hull 701; see Figures 5A-5B and col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32 of Patkov).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,632,991 in view of Hull 701, Patkov, and Hull 612.
Although the claims are not identical, claims 1-20 of USPN 11,632,991 teach a combination with substantially the same elements of claims 1-8, 10, and 17-20 of the present application including a liner, a glove selectively placeable over and removable from over the liner, a body of the glove being fabricated from one or more of nitrile and natural rubber, the body having a thickness of about 4 mils up to about 15 mils, and the body of the glove having the same claimed dimensional characteristics regarding the various imaginary planes and regions.
Claims 1-20 of USPN 11,632,991 do not teach a combination wherein the exterior surface of the body is of a first color and the interior surface of the body is of a second color that is different from the first color or a rolled cuff extends outwardly from the wrist region in a direction opposite to the palm region, wherein a portion of the liner is exposed below an end of the glove, wherein the interior surface of the glove is flocked, texture is provided on gripping surfaces of each of the front and the back, or wherein the pattern of texture on the front is identical to the pattern of texture on the back.
However, Hull 701 teaches a glove (see especially Figures 7A-7B; paras. 0098-0104) wherein the exterior surface (112) of the body is of a first color and the interior surface (90) of the body is of a second color that is different from the first color (para. 0101) or a rolled cuff extends outwardly from the wrist region in a direction opposite to the palm region (annotated Figure 7A; paras. 0101-0102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the exterior and interior surfaces of the body of the glove of claims 1-20 of USPN 11,632,991 to be different colors as taught by Hull 701 because Hull 701 teaches that this configuration is known in the art and enables a user to readily and easily identify a glove failure such as a rip, tear, slice, or other rupture/failure in the exterior surface (para. 0102).
Patkov teaches in combination (10g) (see Figures 5A-5C; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32): a liner (628) adapted to closely conform to a person's hand and a glove selectively placeable over the liner and removable from over the liner wherein a portion the liner is exposed below an end of the glove (see Figures 5A-5B; col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the combination of the modified invention of USPN 11,632,991 such that a portion of the liner is exposed below an end of the glove as taught by Patkov because Patkov teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides comfort and stability on the wearer’s hand (col. 6, line 56 – col. 7, line 32). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an exposed portion of the liner would provide the wearer with an easy-to-grip portion of the liner to grasp while the glove is extracted from the liner, thereby preventing the liner from being inadvertently removed from the wearer’s hand during removal of the glove in the event that the wearer wishes to remove the glove but continue wearing the liner. One of ordinary skill would further recognize that such a configuration would be particularly useful when the hand the wearer is using to remove the glove from the liner is itself covered with a glove.
Hull 612 teaches a combination wherein the interior surface of the glove is flocked (para. 0025) and or texture is provided on gripping surfaces of each of the front and the back, and wherein the pattern of texture on the front is identical to the pattern of texture on the back (see Figures 1-2; paras. 0020 and 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the interior surface of the glove of claims 1-20 of USPN 11,632,991 to be flocked and textured as taught by Hull 612 because Hull 612 teaches that flocking makes the glove more comfortable to wear (para. 0025) and that patterns of texture provide grip (paras. 0020 and 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: At least in view of the cancelation of claim 9, Application 17/168,418 now provides adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for claims 1-8, 10, and 17-20.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed.
Applicant’s Second Argument: Objection to the specification for failure to provide proper antecedent basis for specified claim limitations should be withdrawn for recited reasons.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Third Argument: Objection to claims 1, 7, and 17 for informalities should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Current amendments to the claims overcome the bases of objection for informalities detailed in the prior office action. However, claims 1 and 17 are objected to for informalities on updated bases (see claim objections, above).
Applicant’s Fourth Argument: Rejection of claims 9 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(b) should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed as to claims 9 and 19. The rejection of those claims is withdrawn. However, current amendments to claim 20 have result in an updated basis of rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b) (see rejection under 35 USC 112(b), above).
Applicant’s Fifth Argument: Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 over cited references should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see rejections under 35 USC 103, above).
Applicant’s Sixth Argument: Rejection of the claims for nonstatutory double patenting should be withdrawn at least in of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see double patenting rejection, 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 GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732