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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01 December 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1-2, 4, 7-8, 10
Newly Added
13-23
Canceled
5-6, 12
Pending
1-4, 7-11, 13-23
Presented for Examination
1-4, 7-11, 13-23
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Overcome by the canceling of claim 6.
102 Rejections
The arguments with respect to claim 1 are drawn to newly added subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below.
103 Rejections
Applicant does not argue against the 103 rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-23 are allowed.
Claims 3-4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claims 3 and 9, Wagner (US 5564122 A) is the closest prior art. Wagner FIG 5 discloses the ramped insert increases in thickness/ height in the lateral direction from the center to a radial side and from the center to an ulnar side, but does not disclose the ramped insert increases in thickness from a radial side to an ulnar side. There would be no reason to modify Wagner to have increased thickness from a radial side to an ulnar side without relying on impermissible hindsight reasoning.
New claim 13 is the combination of original claims 1-3.
New claim 20 is the combination of original claims 1 and 9.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “shaped” to –shape--.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second recitations of “a distal end… of the inner glove” and “a proximal end of the inner glove” should be amended to –the distal end—and –the proximal end--.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7 are 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 2 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “further increased in thickness” because it is not clear if this is a typo and should be –increases—or if this is a method step of increasing.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it depends from canceled claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 10-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lesperance (US 4700404 A).
As to claim 1, Lesperance discloses a goalie blocking glove (“Ice hockey goalkeeper glove has rectangular shielding pad over wall provided with slight uniform curvature,” title) comprising:
an inner glove to receive a hand of a user therein, the inner glove extending between a wrist opening at a proximal end of the inner glove and finger sleeves at a distal end of the inner glove (FIGS 1-2), and including a dorsal panel for spanning a dorsal side of the hand (FIGS 1-2, the inner glove in phantom and FIG 3, the dorsal panel being 22);
a front blocking board coupled to the inner glove to protect the dorsal side of the hand (outer wall 32), the front blocking board being elongated in length in a longitudinal direction and having a width transverse to the length in a lateral direction (FIGS 1-2), and the front blocking board including a primary board section occupying a majority of an exterior side of the front blocking board and defining a primary plane of the front blocking board (FIG 1);
a ramped insert (wedge member 42) supported between the dorsal panel of the inner glove and the front blocking board, the ramped insert having a wedged shaped between (i) an interior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the dorsal panel of the inner glove and (ii) an exterior surface of the ramped insert adjacent an interior side of the front blocking board (FIGS 1-3);
wherein the ramped insert increases in thickness from a distal end to a proximal end of the inner glove (FIGS 1-3, the distal end being proximate the fingers and the proximal end being proximate the wrist): and wherein the ramped insert is located at the primary board section of the front blocking board such that the primary plane of the front blocking board is non-parallel to the dorsal panel (FIGS 1-3).
As to claim 2, as best understood, Lesperance discloses the ramped insert further increased in thickness in the lateral direction (as shown in FIGS 1-3, the lateral thickness increased when an additional element 42 was added).
As to claim 8, Lesperance discloses the ramped insert includes a proximal end portion which is longitudinally tapered towards a proximal end of the front blocking board (FIGS 1-3).
As to claim 10, Lesperance discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the front blocking board includes an angled board section at a proximal end of the front blocking board which is angularly offset from the primary board section at the distal end of the front blocking board (38 is angled at the flexible flap as disclosed in col 3 line 5-10 and shown in FIG 3), the exterior surface of the ramped insert including first and second surface portions which are angularly offset from one another such that the first and second surface portions align with the primary board section and the angled board section respectively (FIGS 1-3).
As to claim 11, Lesperance discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the ramped insert is formed of a resilient material (foamed plastic such as foamed polystyrene as disclosed in col 3 line 15-20).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linner (US 5745916 A).
As to claim 1, Linner discloses a goalie blocking glove (“Protective glove for ice-hockey and similar sports,” title, capable of being worn by a goalie) comprising:
an inner glove to receive a hand of a user therein (inner glove 2), the inner glove extending between a wrist opening at a proximal end of the inner glove and finger sleeves at a distal end of the inner glove (FIGS 4-5), and including a dorsal panel for spanning a dorsal side of the hand (FIGS 4-5);
a front blocking board coupled to the inner glove to protect the dorsal side of the hand (FIG 4, 8 or the combination of 8, 5, and 4), the front blocking board being elongated in length in a longitudinal direction and having a width transverse to the length in a lateral direction (FIG 3), and the front blocking board including a primary board section occupying a majority of an exterior side of the front blocking board and defining a primary plane of the front blocking board (FIG 3);
a ramped insert supported between the dorsal panel of the inner glove and the front blocking board (1A), the ramped insert having a wedged shaped between (i) an interior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the dorsal panel of the inner glove and (ii) an exterior surface of the ramped insert adjacent an interior side of the front blocking board (FIGS 4-5);
wherein the ramped insert increases in thickness from a distal end to a proximal end of the inner glove (see annotated FIG 4 below, where the thickness is measured between 8 and the dorsal side of inner glove 2): and
wherein the ramped insert is located at the primary board section of the front blocking board such that the primary plane of the front blocking board is non-parallel to the dorsal panel (FIG 4, at least portions are non-parallel).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Linner discloses the ramped insert includes a proximal end portion which is longitudinally tapered towards a proximal end of the front blocking board (FIG 4).
As to claim 10, Linner discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the front blocking board includes an angled board section at a proximal end of the front blocking board which is angularly offset from the primary board section at the distal end of the front blocking board (FIG 4), the exterior surface of the ramped insert including first and second surface portions which are angularly offset from one another such that the first and second surface portions align with the primary board section and the angled board section respectively (FIG 4).
As to claim 11, Linner discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the ramped insert is formed of a resilient material (“mold-foamed polyurethane,” col 7 line 5-10).
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner (US 5564122 A).
As to claim 1, Wagner discloses a goalie blocking glove (“Hockey goaltender's blocker with angled upper area,” title) comprising:
an inner glove to receive a hand of a user therein, the inner glove extending between a wrist opening at a proximal end of the inner glove and finger sleeves at a distal end of the inner glove (5 including dorsal panel 5A, see FIGS), and including a dorsal panel for spanning a dorsal side of the hand (see FIGS);
a front blocking board coupled to the inner glove to protect the dorsal side of the hand (combination of 3 and 4), the front blocking board being elongated in length in a longitudinal direction and having a width transverse to the length in a lateral direction (see FIGS), and the front blocking board including a primary board section occupying a majority of an exterior side of the front blocking board and defining a primary plane of the front blocking board (FIG 1);
a ramped insert (FIG 6, combination of 10, 11, and 12) supported between the dorsal panel of the inner glove and the front blocking board, the ramped insert having a wedged shaped between (i) an interior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the dorsal panel of the inner glove and (ii) an exterior surface of the ramped insert adjacent an interior side of the front blocking board (see annotated FIG 4 below, where 7 is a wedged shape because the proximal portion is greater in thickness/ height than the distal portion and 6 is a wedged shape because of the way it angles away from 7 in the shape of a wedge);
wherein the ramped insert increases in thickness from a distal end to a proximal end of the inner glove (at least at 7, the insert increases in thickness/ height from distal to proximal end as shown in FIG 4): and
wherein the ramped insert is located at the primary board section of the front blocking board such that the primary plane of the front blocking board is non-parallel to the dorsal panel (see FIGS, at least portions are non-parallel).
PNG
media_image2.png
384
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Wagner discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the ramped insert further increased in thickness in the lateral direction (FIG 5 shows the ramped insert has the least thickness/ height in the center and the thickness/ height increases toward the lateral sides).
As to claim 10, Wagner discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the front blocking board includes an angled board section at a proximal end of the front blocking board which is angularly offset from the primary board section at the distal end of the front blocking board (3 is offset from 4), the exterior surface of the ramped insert including first and second surface portions which are angularly offset from one another such that the first and second surface portions align with the primary board section and the angled board section respectively (FIGS 4-6).
As to claim 11, Wagner discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 1 wherein the ramped insert is formed of a resilient material (col 2 line 55-60 discloses STYROFOAM, plastic, and/ or foam).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesperance (US 4700404 A).
As to claim 7, Lesperance discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 6 wherein an exterior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the front blocking board is sloped in the longitudinal direction relative to an interior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the inner glove (FIGS 1-3), but does not disclose the exterior surface is sloped relative to the interior surface at an angle in the range of 5 degrees to 15 degrees.
Lesperance discloses a variable number of wedge members of different angles in col 3 line 25-30. Therefore, changing the angle of the wedge member is within the scope of the Lesperance reference.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an angle in the range of 5 degrees to 15 degrees, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an angle in the range of 5 degrees to 15 degrees, in order to provide the desired amount of deflection (Lesperance col 3 line 30-41).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linner (US 5745916 A).
As to claim 7, Linner discloses the goalie blocking glove according to claim 6 wherein the exterior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the front blocking board is sloped in the longitudinal direction relative to the interior surface of the ramped insert adjacent the inner glove (FIG 4), but does not disclose the exterior surface is sloped relative to the interior surface at an angle in the range of 5 degrees to 15 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an angle in the range of 5 degrees to 15 degrees, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an angle in the range of 5 degrees to 15 degrees, in order to provide the desired amount of deflection and user range of motion.
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. 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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732