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 drawings are objected to because Figure 5 presents separate figures and no brackets of lead lines showing how 50A, 20A, 10A are associated with the glove 1. 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.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 presents multiple structures with no lead lines of brackets showing how they are associated. 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.
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 glove further comprises a reinforcement belt attached to the dorsal side part and the finger strap as required by claim 5. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the title is repeated in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The limitations “a grip pad….located in an area where a palm of the user’s hand touches the computer mouse when in use”, “wherein the glove body extends over the wrist of a user”, “…located on both sides of tendons or carpal tunnel of the receivable users hand”, and “each cushion is located on each side of tendon or carpal tunnel of the receivable user’s hand” should include the language “configured to”, “adapted to”, or “when worn” to overcome these rejections.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “creating twisted construction glove body” requires structurally of the parts and attachment. This is not a well-known glove body construction, so it is unclear what is required of the glove to read on this limitation.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear where the palm support pad needs to extend along the palm part, since the structure is being claimed based upon human anatomy and not glove structure.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear where the two cushions are located on the palm pad, since they are claimed based upon human anatomy and not glove structure.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “the third opening” is and how it relates to the other opening and the third openings (plural) previously recited. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “natural stitched batting” requires structurally, does this require a specific material and stitching? The specification names “natural stitched batting” but does not define what materials or structures this would require. Therefore, it is unclear what is needed to read on this limitation.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what “printed silicon texture” requires of the grip pad, it is unclear if applicant intends the material to be “silicone” and not “silicon”, it is unclear how a silicon texture is printed on a pad, the specification does use both silicone and silicon, while the silicone texture is well-known as a grip surface in the apparel arts, the use of silicon for grip is unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the parts". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 contains the trademark/trade name LYCRA. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe spandex or elastane and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the area between”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garneau (US 2014/0325740) in view of Ramirez (US 9,962,594) and Griego (US 9,380,820).
In regard to claim 1, Garneau teaches an ergonomic glove comprising: a palmar side part; a dorsal side part (figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0003);wherein the palmar side part and the dorsal side part are interconnected to each other so that a section of the palmar side part extends to the dorsal side part and a section of the dorsal side part extends to the palmar side part creating twisted construction glove body see figure 1, seam lines connecting dorsal and palmar sections: paragraph 0051), and wherein the parts are shaped and attached to each other so that a glove body is formed (paragraph 0003 and 0051), and wherein the glove body having a first opening for receiving a user's hand (opening at wrist end: 22), a second opening for receiving a user's thumb (thumb opening in figure 1) and third openings for receiving four user's fingers (openings at the ends of finger: 16), and wherein the glove body extends over the wrist (wrist end: 22) of the user's hand; a palm support pad (cushioning pads: 40) attached to the palmar side part so that the palm support pad is faced against palm bones and tissue/muscles located on both sides of tendons or carpal tunnel of the receivable user's hand (see figures 1 and 2), wherein the palm support pad (40) comprises two cushions (30 and 30 in figure 2) made of natural stitched batting (paragraph 0068), wherein each cushion is positioned within the support pad (40) so that each cushion (30, 30) is located on each side of tendon or carpal tunnel of the receivable user's hand (see figures 2), and wherein the palm support pad (40) comprises a cover (layer: 36) that covers both cushions (30, 30, see figure 4) so that only the cover (36) of the palm support pad (40) is configured to contact a computer mouse when in use as desired.
However, Garneau fails to teach a grip pad attached to the palmar side part and located in an area where a palm of the user's hand touches the computer mouse when in use, wherein the grip pad comprises a printed silicon texture for better grip of the glove with the computer mouse; and a finger strap attached to the dorsal side part near the third opening of the glove body.
Ramirez teaches a glove with a grip pad attached to the palmar side part and located in an area where a palm of the user's hand touches the computer mouse when in use (column 17, lines 7-17; figure 5, identifier 34 and column 29, lines 35-48), wherein the grip pad comprises a printed silicon texture that is configured for better grip of the glove with the computer mouse.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided palm part of Garneau with a grip pad as taught by Ramirez, since the palm part of Garneau provided with a grip pad would provide a means for better grip and to more securely hold items while wearing the glove.
Griego teaches a glove with finger openings wherein a finger strap is attached to a dorsal side part near a third opening of the glove body (pull tabs: 44, figure 6A; column 6, lines 9-17).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided glove opening of Garneau with a pull tab/finger strap as taught by Griego, since the third opening of Garneau provided with a pull tab/finger strap would provide a means to assist with donning and doffing the glove on a user’s finger/hand.
In regard to claim 2, Garneau teaches wherein the palm support pad (40) has a convex shape so that the palm support pad is configured to extend around the body of the computer mouse when the ergonomic glove is in use (see figures 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 3, Garneau teaches wherein the palmar side part and the dorsal side part are made of fabric comprising nylon, polyamide, polyester, elastane and LYCRA (paragraph 0066).
In regard to claim 5, Garneau teaches wherein the glove further comprises a reinforcement belt (rivet: 50) attached to the dorsal side part and the finger strap (44) so to reinforce the holding of the finger strap to the glove (column 6, lines 9-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited on PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Yewer, Jr. (US 5,790,980) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights