DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 July 2026 has been entered.
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 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0173478 A1) in view of Smith (US Pat. No. 8,381,413 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
475
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 (comprised of 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; see above); 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 a same said glovebox glove (G; see each finger section above); a flexible section (i.e.; the arms 46 of the support are bendable to be flexed between various positions; Para. 0071).
Williams does not particularly teach 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 the first and second ones of the finger elements that are adapted to be located in the same glovebox glove are bendable toward one another such that a lateral span of the glove holder at a position of the finger elements is reducible.
Smith teaches a glove holder (130H, Fig. 11) with finger elements (140H) each insertable into one finger section of a same glove (160H); wherein a flexible section 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 the first and second ones of the finger elements that are adapted to be located in the same glovebox glove are bendable toward one another such that a lateral span of the glove holder at a position of the finger elements is reducible (Col 18, Lines 22-33; Col 21, Lines 48-57).
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 holder to include 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 the first and second ones of the finger elements that are adapted to be located in the same glovebox glove are bendable toward one another such that a lateral span of the glove holder at a position of the finger elements is reducible. The motivation would be for accommodating different sizes and shapes of gloves (e.g.; children’s, adult’s, etc.) as taught by Smith (Col 18, Lines 49-67; Col 19, Lines 1-9; Col 21, Lines 48-57).
In regards to claim 2, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the flexible section is at least partially located on at least the first finger element (Smith: 140H) of the at least two finger elements (Smith: Col 18, Lines 22-33; Col 21, Lines 48-57).
In regards to claim 3, modified 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 of Williams).
In regards to claim 4, modified Williams teaches two or more of the at least two finger elements are arranged in a common plane (along the top plane of 58 of Williams).
In regards to claim 5, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches at least one of the finger elements (Smith: 140H) is arranged outside the common plane spanned by the two or more finger elements (Smith: Col 18, Lines 49-53).
In regards to claim 6, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the at least one of the finger elements (Smith: 140H) has the flexible section (Smith: Col 18, Lines 22-33; Col 21, Lines 48-57).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the at least two finger elements (Smith: 140) 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) (Smith: Col 18, Lines 26-28).
In regards to claim 9, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the flexible section has an elongated cross section (e.g.; an ellipse; Smith: Col 13, Lines 63-67; Col 14, Lines 1-4).
In regards to claim 10, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the first finger element (Smith: 140) has a bending direction oriented towards the second finger element (Smith: 140) (i.e.; the fingers can bend toward each other).
In regards to claim 11, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the at least two finger elements (Smith: 140) comprise at least two of the first finger elements that each have a flexible section (i.e.; each are bendable) 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 (Smith: Col 18, Lines 22-33; Col 21, Lines 48-57).
In regards to claim 12, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the at least two finger elements (Smith: 140) comprise outer finger elements (Smith: outer 140H, Fig. 11) and inner finger elements (Smith: inner 140H, Fig. 11), and the outer finger elements are attached to the support (Smith: 150H) at a distance from where the inner finger elements are attached to the support (i.e.; distanced around 225 of Smith).
In regards to claim 13, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches the finger element (Smith: 140) is made of plastic (Smith: Col 18, Lines 26-28).
In regards to claim 15, in modifying Williams, Smith teaches at least two of the finger elements (Smith: 140) have differing geometry (e.g.; see finger having different tip 135H in Fig. 11 of Smith).
Claims 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 Smith (US Pat. No. 8,381,413 B2) and Pitcher (US Pat. No. 4,697,724).
In regards to claim 14, Williams, modified by Smith, 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).
Claims 16 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0173478 A1) in view of Smith (US Pat. No. 8,381,413 B2) and Fenohr (US Pat. No. 907,137).
In regards to claims 16 and 18, in modifying Williams, Smith does not particularly teach two of the outer finger elements have a coinciding springiness (claim 16); and at least two of the at least two finger elements have different springiness from one another (claim 20). However, Smith teaches any combination or permutation of one or more spreaders 140 may be flexible, articulated, rigid, repositionable, jointed, collapsible, extendable, continuous, merged, hinged, etc., and all such variations are within the scope of the present invention (Col 10, Lines 52-58).
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; 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 further modify Williams’s glove holder such that 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner now relies on the teachings of Williams, Smith, and Fenohr as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
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