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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawings must be submitted to show each and every component of the invention as claimed in claims 1-16. No Drawings were found in the Application. The figures as in Applicant’s PCT Application needs to be included in the present Application. Each component of the invention must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6,7, 8,11,12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Williams (US 2016/0124508 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Williams discloses a washable glove (100A, 100B), as a five-figured glove as in figures 1a and 3a), having a cuff opening 117 in para. 14, a palm side 115, a back of hand side, and at least one five finger receptacles at 119,120 in the figures, produced from a multilayer material as in figure 1b, having an inner layer 102b and an outer layer 102b in the figures and para. 15, wherein at least one intermediate layer 108 is provided as a waterproof barrier as a waterproof or water resistant barrier as in para. 15.
In claims 6 and 11, Williams discloses in para. 21,, “an emulsion printed and cured onto the glove palm to enhance a gripping surface. Silicone is commonly used in such an emulsion.
In regard to claims 15 and 16, Williams discloses the five fingered glove as claimed as seen in the figures and the water repellant finish as in claims 4,9,10 and 16 and as claimed in claim 1 discussed above.
The gloves of Williams are not disposable gloves and therefore are considered to be washable gloves as claimed.
In regard to claims 7 , and 12 Williams discloses the conductive material as claimed in as in figure 1 and paras. 17 and 27.In regard to claim 13, Williams discloses the inner and outer layers made of the same synthetic materials including those from the group as claimed as seen in para. (0014)-(0017).
In regard to claim 8, Williams discloses the layers as being laminated to one another as in para. 19 that states, “layers captured between the inner and outer layers via a selected adhesive”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Gore and Associates (EP 0972459)
In regard to claims 2 and 3, Williams discloses the invention as claimed. However, Williams does not specifically disclose the moisture barrier as a breathable membrane made of thermoplastic polyurethane and in claim 3, wherein the inner and outer layers are of the same material. Gore and Associates discloses the breathable thermoplastic polyurethane material and the layers as being of the same material in the inner and outer layers as in paras. (0033) and (0034) of Gore and Associates.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inner and outer layers to make them of the same material for ease in manufacturing and to use a breathable thermoplastic polyurethane material as discloses in Gore Associates para. (0033) for claim 2 and para. (0034) for claim 3.
Claim(s) 5, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Dun CO. (KR 101178741).
In regard to claims 5, 9 and 10, Williams discloses the glove as claimed except for the use of antibacterial or antimicrobial material as claimed. Dun. CO. in the translation, paras. 42 and 43 disclose the antibacterial/antimicrobial materials as claimed in order to provide more protection of the wearer against bacteria as claimed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the glove of Williams with the teaching of Dun Co. to include an antibacterial/antimicrobial materials within the layers to protect a wearer from bacteria as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984 or to schedule an interview email to Gloria.Hale@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS..
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 1-571-272-3425. 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.
/GLORIA M HALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
