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 10 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, 11
Newly Added
16-18
Canceled
4
Pending
1-3 and 5-18
Presented for Examination
1-3 and 5-18
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections, 101 Rejections, 112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the claim amendments and withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant argues the at rest position shown in the Sauer FIGS is not the shape of a wearer’s relaxed hand position. Applicant is reminded that although the specification describes the relaxed hand portion, the claims do not, and limitations in the specification are not imported into the claims. Further, the recitation “relaxed position” is an intended use recitation. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Because the prior art reference and the claimed invention are structurally identical, they are expected to be capable of being used in the same manner, and the prior art reference reads on the intended use recitation in the claim.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the Sauer the space is capable of receiving the hand in a relaxed position due to the flexibility of the material and the fact that it is shaped like a hand in a relaxed position. Further still this recitation is dependent upon an individual user’s relaxed hand position which is not necessarily identical to another user’s relaxed hand position.
Applicant argues Rumer does not disclose the at rest position. This is not commensurate with the claim. Sauer discloses an at rest position. Rumer provides a teaching that it is known to bias a glove toward a position. Rumer is not relied upon to disclose the at rest position, as that is already disclosed by Sauer. Rumer is relied upon to teach it would be obvious to bias the glove toward a position.
The remaining arguments are drawn to amended subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below.
In light of the above, the rejections are believed to be proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (US 0385728 A) in view of Rumer (US 7954169 B2).
As to claim 1, Sauer discloses a goalkeeper catching glove (title) comprising:
a front portion defining a cuff region, a thumb region, a finger region, and a palm region (FIG 1, see annotated FIG 1 below),
a rear portion connected to the front portion (FIG 2), the front portion and the rear portion defining therebetween a space for receiving a hand of a goalkeeper (FIGS 3 and 4); and
a trap connected to at least one of the front portion or the rear portion (H between the index finger and thumb in FIG 2), the trap extending in a gap defined between the thumb region and the finger region (see annotated FIG 2 below), the trap extending between distal portions of the thumb region and the finger region (see annotated FIG 2 below), the trap being configured for catching a hockey puck therein (capable of catching a hocking puck);
the goalkeeper catching glove having an at rest position (FIGS 1-2) and being movable between an at rest position and a closed position (capable of having a closed position; page 1 col 1 line 40-45 discloses the glove is flexible, therefore, the glove is capable of being folded into a closed position such as when the wearer catches a ball and closes the glove around the ball in the glove so as to prevent the ball from bouncing out and/ or to prevent dropping the ball while carrying it),
the front portion being shaped such that in the at rest position the space is adapted to receive the hand of the goalkeeper in a relaxed position (this is dependent on the individual user’s relaxed position, and Sauer FIGS 3-4 show a space that is capable of receiving a hand in a relaxed position),
the goalkeeper catching glove having a perimeter (FIGS 1-2),
a projection of the perimeter of the goalkeeper catching glove in the at rest position onto a plane disposed in front of the goalkeeper catching glove having an at rest surface area (FIGS 1-2),
the at rest surface area being at least 90 percent of a maximum surface area (FIGS 1-2, the at rest surface area is 100% of the maximum surface area of the glove), and
the maximum surface area being a largest possible surface area of a projection of the perimeter of the goalkeeper catching glove onto the plane (FIGS 1-2).
Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove being normally biased toward the at rest position for returning the_goalkeeper_catghing_glove totheat rest position. However, since all of Sauer’s figures show the glove in the at rest position, one of ordinary skill would expect that the at rest position is the default position.
Sauer discloses a baseball catcher’s glove. It is known in the art that new baseball gloves for catching baseballs are typically stiff and open (which is to say, resistant to creasing/ folding) at rest but due to their flexibility may be trained or formed to have a folded position. This resistance to creasing folding is the equivalent to being biased toward the open/ at rest position.
Rumer teaches the palm portion of a glove typically resists creasing (col 6 line 15-30, Rumer’s glove is designed to overcome the problem of the natural tendency to resist creasing). One of ordinary skill would expect the Sauer glove, being a typical baseball glove, to have at least some resistance to creasing as well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the Sauer glove to have at least some resistance to creasing, which is to say, the Sauer glove being normally biased toward the at rest position, for the purpose of providing a known property for a baseball glove.
Sauer does not expressly disclose the palm region having a concave exterior surface in the at rest position and in the closed position.
Sauer FIG 3 shows the entire exterior surface of the front portion is concave in the at rest position, but not specifically the palm region.
Rumer teaches the palm region having a concave exterior surface in the at rest position (FIGS 1 and 3) and in the closed position (FIGS 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the palm region having a concave exterior surface in the at rest position and in the closed position, so that in the at rest position, the glove follows the contours of the wearer’s hand at rest for wearer comfort and to prepare the wearer for catching an object in the palm region and in the closed position, the glove follows the contours of the object being caught, to secure the object in the glove.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Sauer as modified discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein the at rest surface area is at least 95 percent of the maximum surface area (Sauer FIGS 1-2, the at rest surface area is 100% of the maximum surface area of the glove).
As to claim 3, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 2, wherein the at rest surface area is the maximum surface area (Sauer FIGS 1-2, the at rest surface area is 100% of the maximum surface area of the glove).
As to claim 5, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein:
the front portion comprises an impact resistant member (Sauer padding F, G, I, J);
the impact resistant member is disposed at least in the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region (I and J span the entirety of the finger and thumb regions and F and G span the entirety of the palm region); and
the impact resistant member biases the goalkeeper catching glove toward the at rest position (all of the component parts in combination bias the glove toward the at rest position, see the rejection of claim 1 above).
As to claim 7, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 5, wherein the unitary impact resistant member is a molded unitary impact resistant member (The recitation “molded” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product- by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113(I).).
As to claim 10, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein the front portion further comprises an inner member connected to the unitary impact resistant member (D), the inner member being disposed between the unitary impact resistant member and the rear portion (FIGS 4-5).
As to claim 12, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 5, wherein the impact resistant member is a unitary impact resistant member (to the degree the layers in combination form a single member), the unitary impact resistant member spanning at least a majority of the cuff region, at least a majority of the thumb region, at least a majority of the finger region, and at least a majority of the palm region (I and J span the entirety of the finger and thumb regions and F and G span the entirety of the palm region).
As to claim 16, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein the trap comprises a webbing.
Sauer teaches a glove intended to help the wearer when catching a ball.
Rumer teaches a trap connected to at least one of the front portion or the rear portion (35), the trap extending in a gap defined between the thumb region and the finger region (FIG 1), the trap extending between distal portions of the thumb region and the finger region (FIG 1), the trap being configured for catching a hockey puck therein (capable of catching a hocking puck), and the trap comprises a webbing (“web portion 35”).
The webbing/ web portion 35 is intended to help the wearer catch the ball and retain the ball within the glove.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the glove of Sauer with a trap such as the one taught by Rumer, for the purpose of facilitating catching objects and retaining objects in the glove.
As to claim 17, Sauer as modified discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 16, wherein the trap further comprises a reinforcement strip connected to the webbing (Rumer’s lacing 36).
As to claim 18, Sauer as modified discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim17, wherein the trap further comprises an edge piece covering a peripheral edge of the reinforcement strip (Rumer FIG 1 shows 34 and 38 cover portions of edge 36).
Claim(s) 6, 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (US 0385728 A) in view of Rumer (US 7954169 B2) as applied to claim 5 or 10 above, and further in view of Phillips (US 20030039819 A1).
As to claim 6, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 5, wherein the unitary impact resistant member is made from plastic.
Sauer’s member is padding for preventing injury by providing a cushion between the wearer’s body and an impact such as an impact from the ball or ground (Sauer col 2 line 90-100).
Phillips teaches a similar unitary impact resistant member (2) including the member is made from plastic (para. 0024 discloses polycarbonate, which is a plastic). Although Phillips’ member is provided on a vest and Sauer’s member is provided on a glove, both members are for cushioning a wearer’s body against impacts during sports (Phillips para. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Sauer with Phillips padding, either by replacing Sauer’s padding F, G, I, J or by providing Phillips padding as an additional layer, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Sauer with Phillips padding, either by replacing Sauer’s padding F, G, |, J or by providing Phillips padding as an additional layer for the purpose of resisting damage (Phillips para. 0024).
As to claim 8, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 5, wherein the front portion further comprises a facing connected to a front of the unitary impact resistant member. Sauer’s member is padding for preventing injury by providing a cushion between the wearer’s body and an impact such as an impact from the ball or ground (Sauer col 2 line 90-100). Phillips teaches a similar unitary impact resistant member (4) including a facing connected to a front of the unitary impact resistant member (6 and/ or 8). Although Phillips’ member is provided on a vest and Sauer’s member is provided on a glove, both members are for cushioning a wearer's body against impacts during sports (Phillips para. 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Sauer with Phillips padding, either by replacing Sauer’s padding F, G, I, J or by providing Phillips padding 4 as an additional layer, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Sauer with Phillips padding, either by replacing Sauer’s padding F, G, |, J or by providing Phillips padding 4 as an additional layer for the purpose of resisting damage (Phillips para. 0024).
As to claim 9, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 5, wherein the front portion further comprises a foam backing connected to a back of the unitary impact resistant member.
Sauer’s member is padding for preventing injury by providing a cushion between the wearer’s body and an impact such as an impact from the ball or ground (Sauer col 2 line 90-100).
Phillips teaches a similar unitary impact resistant member (6 or 8) including a foam backing connected to a back of the unitary impact resistant member (4 is laminated to 6 and 8). Although Phillips’ member is provided on a vest and Sauer’s member is provided on a glove, both members are for cushioning a wearer’s body against impacts during sports (Phillips para. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace Sauer’s padding F, G, |, J with Phillips padding 4/6/8, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace Sauer’s padding F, G, I, J with Phillips padding 4/6/8 for the purpose of resisting damage (Phillips para. 0024).
This modification obviously results in a foam backing (Phillips 4) connected to a back of the unitary impact resistant member (Phillips 6 or 8).
As to claim 11, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 10, wherein the inner member is made from foam.
Sauer’s member is padding for preventing injury by providing a cushion between the wearer’s body and an impact such as an impact from the ball or ground (Sauer col 2 line 90-100).
Phillips teaches an inner member (2) including the inner member is made from foam (foam 4, see para. 0024). Although Phillips’ member is provided on a vest and Sauer’s member is provided on a glove, both members are for cushioning a wearer’s body against impacts during sports (Phillips para. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace Sauer’s padding D with Phillips padding 2, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace Sauer’s padding D with Phillips padding 2 for the purpose of resisting damage (Phillips para. 0024).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (US 0385728 A) in view of Rumer (US 7954169 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Webster (US 4748690 A).
As to claim 13, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, further comprising a hand covering disposed in the space, the hand covering being configured for receiving the hand of the goalkeeper, and the hand covering being selectively removably connected to an inner side of the front portion.
Sauer discloses a baseball catching glove. It is known to wear a baseball catching glove over an inner glove, and an inner glove would read on a hand covering as recited in claim 13.
Webster teaches a similar glove (62 in FIGS 6-7), and further comprising a hand covering disposed in the space (12), the hand covering being configured for receiving the hand of the goalkeeper (capable of receiving and intended to receive), and the hand covering being selectively removably connected to an inner side of the front portion (at least frictionally connected to the inner side of the front and rear portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the baseball glove of Sauer with the hand covering taught by Webster, for the purpose of absorbing shocks to reduce injury (Webster abstract).
Furthermore, wearing Sauer and Webster would obviously result in the hand covering being selectively removably connected to an inner side of the front portion by friction and/ or by Sauer’s fastener X shown in FIG 2.
As to claim 14, Sauer as modified does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 13, wherein the hand covering is selectively removably connected to an inner side of the front portion via hook and loop fasteners.
Sauer in view of Webster does disclose the hand covering is selectively removably connected to an inner side of the front portion via fasteners X as shown in FIG 2, but not hook and loop fasteners, specifically.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace Sauer’s X with hook and loop fasteners, for the purpose of providing a known fastener type for releasably securing the glove and hand covering to the wearer’s hand.
As to claim 15, Sauer as modified discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 13, wherein the hand covering is a glove having four finger stalls and one thumb stall (this is the result of the modification presented in the rejection of claim 13 above, see Webster FIGS 6-7).
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