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
The amendment filed on 4/20/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 12 were amended. Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (US 2022/0095714) in view of Blum et al (US 12,527,951).
The device of Iida teaches,
With respect to claim 1, A pointing device operating sleeve comprising:
a palm cover (10) configured to cover a part of a palm, the palm cover including a first opening (at 12); an arm cover (2) configured to cover at least a part of a forearm (Figures 2 and 3) , the arm cover being continuous with the palm cover (Figures 2 and 3) and including a second opening (distal end of 2);
wherein the first opening includes an outside end, an inside end, a back-side edge, and a palm-side edge, the back-side edge and the palm-side edge each being positioned between the outside end and the inside end; (see annotated figure below)
and the palm-side edge is, at least partly, positioned on a bottom side with respect to the back- side edge (see annotated figure below).
The device of Iida substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a hole configure to adapt to a little finger.
The device of Blum et al. teaches,
A palm cover (10) a hole (36) configured to adapt the little finger (column 7, lines 25-30); the hole is disposed at the outside end of the first opening so that the little finger pass through the hole (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the finger hole taught by Blum et al. in order to provide stability of the distal end (Column 7, lines 25-30).
With respect to claim 2, wherein a maximum value of a difference between a height defined by the back-side edge and a height defined by the palm-side edge in a longitudinal axis direction of the sleeve is greater than or equal to 20 mm. It is noted that the height defined by the back side edge is greater than a height defined by the palm side edge (see annotated figure, shows a similar position and size); however, the prior art of Iida is silent with respect to the claimed size. It has been cited by legal precedent 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), 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. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Iida and is therefore not patentably distinct. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the claimed dimension of 20mm as recited, in order to provide adequate coverage and fit for an average size user.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the palm-side edge is, in its entirety, positioned on the bottom side with respect to the back- side edge (see annotated figure).
With respect to claim 4, wherein the palm-side edge is, at least partly, positioned on the bottom side with respect to an imaginary straight line that connects between the outside end and the inside end. (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the palm-side edge is, in its entirety, positioned on the bottom side with respect to the imaginary straight line. (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the back-side edge is, at least partly, positioned on a top side with respect to an imaginary straight line that connects between the outside end and the inside end (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 7, wherein the back-side edge is, in its entirety, positioned on the top side with respect to the imaginary straight line. (see figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the palm-side edge forms a shape protruding toward the bottom side, and the back- side edge forms a shape protruding toward a top side. (see annotated figure below).
With respect to claim 9, wherein: the back-side edge includes a first edge portion and a second edge portion (see annotated figure), the second edge portion being positioned on an inside with respect to the first edge portion (see annotated figure);
a height defined by the first edge portion in a longitudinal axis direction of the sleeve decreases gradually from an outside toward the inside (see annotated figure);
a height defined by the second edge portion in the longitudinal axis direction of the sleeve decreases gradually from the outside toward the inside; and a decrease rate of the height of the second edge portion is greater than a decrease rate of the height of the first edge portion (see annotated figure).
With respect to claim m10, the palm-side edge includes a third edge portion and a fourth edge portion, the fourth edge portion being positioned on an inside with respect to the third edge portion (see annotated figure); a height defined by the third edge portion in a longitudinal axis direction of the sleeve decreases gradually from an outside toward the inside (see annotated figure);
a height defined by the fourth edge portion in the longitudinal axis direction of the sleeve decreases gradually from the outside toward the inside (see annotated figure);
and a decrease rate of the height of the third edge portion is greater than a decrease rate of the height of the fourth edge portion. (see annotated figure).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the palm cover includes a back-side panel and a palm-side panel, the palm-side panel having an area that is less than an area of the back-side panel (Figures 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 12, wherein a height at the outside end is greater than a height at the inside end in a longitudinal axis direction of the sleeve (Figure 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
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 RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
[AltContent: textbox (2nd edge)][AltContent: textbox (3rd edge end)][AltContent: textbox (4th edge end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (1st edge end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Palm side edge, protrudes toward bottom side)][AltContent: textbox (Back side edge, protrudes toward top side)]
PNG
media_image1.png
166
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inside end)]
PNG
media_image2.png
526
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Outside end)]
Prosecution Insights