DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0173478 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1, Williams teaches a glove holder (20), comprising: a frame (28) that is capable of being attached to an outer side of a containment (25); a support (46, 48, 50, 58) that protrudes from said frame and is operable to carry an arm section of a glovebox glove (G) (via portion 50); at least two finger elements (60) formed at a free end of said support, each of the at least two finger elements being insertable into one finger section of said glovebox glove; a flexible section that allows elastic bending of a first one of the finger elements towards a second one of the finger elements of the at least two finger elements such that a lateral span (S; see annotation above) of the glove holder at a position of the finger elements is reducible (i.e.; the arms 46 of the support are bendable to be flexed between various positions; Para. 0071). Therefore, the span (S) between the fingers can be reduced.
In regards to claim 3, Williams teaches the flexible section is at least partially located on the support (i.e.; the arms 46 of the support are bendable to be flexed between various positions; Para. 0071).
In regards to claim 4, Williams teaches two or more of the at least two finger elements (60) are arranged in a common plane (along the top plane of 58).
In regards to claim 5, Williams teaches at least one of the finger elements (60) is arranged outside the common plane spanned by the two or more finger elements (i.e.; bending one of the arms 46 can move the fingers into different planes).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, Williams teaches the at least two finger elements (60) are provided, at least in glove contact regions, with a surface of a material with reduced friction (claim 7); wherein the surface of the material with reduced friction comprises plastic material (claim 8; Para. 0067).
In regards to claim 9, Williams teaches the flexible section has an elongated cross section (the passage 44 can be oval; (Para. 0070); and matches the shape of the arms 46; Para. 0034).
In regards to claim 10, Williams teaches the first finger element (60) has a bending direction oriented towards the second finger element (60) (i.e.; the fingers can bend toward each other via the bending section of arms 46).
In regards to claim 12, Williams teaches the at least two finger elements (60) comprise outer finger elements and inner finger elements, and the outer finger elements are attached to the support at a distance from where the inner finger elements are attached to the support (i.e.; the outer fingers are attached at the outer ends of 58 in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 13, Williams teaches the first finger element (60) is made of plastic (Para. 0067).
In regards to claim 15, Williams teaches at least two of the finger elements have different geometry (e.g.; the fingers of 62b, Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6, 11, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0173478 A1) in view of Fenohr (US Pat. No. 907,137).
In regards to claims 2, 6, 11, 16 and 20, Williams does not teach the flexible section is at least partially located on at least the first finger element of the at least two finger elements (claim 2); the at least one of the finger elements has the flexible section (claim 6); the at least two finger elements comprise at least two of the first finger elements that each have a flexible section that allows bending of each of the first finger elements towards at least one of the other of the first finger elements or the second finger element (claim 11); and wherein two of the outer finger elements have a coinciding springiness (claim 16); and wherein at least two of the at least two finger elements have different springiness from one another (claim 20).
Fenohr teaches a glove holder having at least two finger elements (3), including inner and outer finger elements, wherein flexible sections in the form of elastic pivots and springs (4, 6) are located on the fingers such that the flexible section is at least partially located on at least the first finger element of the at least two finger elements (claim 2); the at least one of the finger elements has the flexible section (claim 6); the at least two finger elements comprise at least two of the first finger elements that each have a flexible section that allows bending of each of the first finger elements towards at least one of the other of the first finger elements or the second finger element (claim 11); and wherein two of the outer finger elements have a coinciding springiness (i.e.; the two outer finger elements 3 in Fig. 2 with springs 4 and 6) (claim 16); and wherein at least two of the at least two finger elements have different springiness from one another (i.e.; one of the outer finger elements 3 in Fig. 3 has both springs 4 and 6, and a middle finger element 3 only has spring 4) (claim 20). See Page 1, Lines 25-51.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Williams’s glove holder such that the flexible section is at least partially located on at least the first finger element of the at least two finger elements (claim 2); the at least one of the finger elements has the flexible section (claim 6); the at least two finger elements comprise at least two of the first finger elements that each have a flexible section that allows bending of each of the first finger elements towards at least one of the other of the first finger elements or the second finger element (claim 11); wherein two of the outer finger elements have a coinciding springiness (claim 16); and wherein at least two of the at least two finger elements have different springiness from one another (claim 20). The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing the fingers to be separated as desired, and any may be pulled forward so that a glove placed thereon may be readily cleaned at the bases or roots of and between the fingers as taught by Fenohr (Page 1, Lines 45-51).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0173478 A1) in view of Pitcher (US Pat. No. 4,697,724).
In regards to claim 14, Williams does not teach the plastic comprises at least one of POM, EPDM (ethylene propylene diene monomer), PP (Polypropylene), Silicon or a POM PTFE blend.
Pitcher teaches a glover holder have finger elements made of polypropylene (Col 2, Lines 56-58).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Williams’s finger element to be made of polypropylene. The motivation would be for the purpose of using resilient high impact plastic as taught by Pitcher (Col 1, Lines 62-66).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a glovebox) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Williams’s holder is not directed to a glove holder used in connection with a glovebox glove, and is not attached to a containment, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Williams’s holder is directed to various glove types (see Para 0002). Reusability of the gloves does not preclude Williams’s holder from holding a glovebox glove. In addition, Williams teaches the holder attachable to a containment (e.g.; a support surface 25), to includes a cabinet (i.e.; a containment; Para 0027).
Applicant further argues Williams does not teach a flexible section that allows elastic bending of a first one of the finger elements towards a second one of the finger elements. Examiner disagrees because Williams states, “In one embodiment, the arms 46 may be "bendable" so as to be flexed between various shapes and positions.” (Para 0071). Therefore, the flexible section allows elastic bending of the finger elements towards each other. This interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s flexible section 14 positioned on part 20 shown in figure 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action (i.e.; claim 20 is newly added). 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 STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights