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 17 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, 6, 11, 14
Newly Added
16-18
Pending
1-18
Presented for Examination
1-18
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections, 112(b) Rejections
Overcome by the claim amendments and withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant argues Sauer does not disclose a trap. The term “trap” does not lend any particular structure to the glove. Sauer discloses all of the structure of the claimed trap. Applicant provides a narrower definition of a trap in the Remarks as being a pocket; however, this is not a limitation found in the claim. Because Sauer F has all of the structure of the claimed trap, it is considered to be a trap.
Arguments drawn to the amended subject matter and addressed in the rejections below.
In light of the above, the rejections are believed to be proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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 1 recites the limitation "all lines normal to a plane." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “a normal line” in the fourth line from the end because it is not clear if this is included in or in addition to “all lines normal to a plane.”
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “the normal line” because it is not clear to which of the previously recited normal lines this is referring.
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected under 112.
The claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (US 0385728 A).
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),
the palm region being concave (FIG 4);
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 (F), the trap extending in a gap defined between the thumb region and the finger region (FIG 3 shows F is in a gap between D and H, and at least portions of D and H are between at least portions of the thumb region and finger region), the trap extending between distal portions of the thumb region and the finger region (see annotated FIG 1 below which shows at least a portion of the trap extends between distal portions of the thumb region and the finger region), the trap being configured for catching a hockey puck therein (capable of catching),
the goalkeeper catching glove having an at rest position (FIGS 1-2) and being movable between the 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),
the front portion having a puck reflection area (FIGS 1-2), the puck reflection area being at least 80 percent of a total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region (FIGS 1-2, the puck reflection area is 100% of the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region).
Sauer does not expressly disclose all lines normal to a plane defined by a front surface of the cuff region and passing through the puck reflection area being incident lines, and the puck reflection area being shaped such that, for each incident line: a corresponding reflection line extends through the trap, the reflection line extending from a point of intersection between the incident line and the puck reflection area; the reflection line being at a first angle to a normal line; the normal line being normal to the puck reflection area at the point of intersection; the incident line being at a second angle to the normal line; and the first angle and the second angle are equal.
All of the above recitations are describing the degree of curve of the glove.
Sauer’s glove has a curve as shown in FIG 3 and also is flexible and is capable of being arranged to meet the above recitations.
A human hand naturally has a limited range of motion. It may be flat, curve backward a small degree, or curve forward all the way into a fist. It is known to provide gloves being pre-curved to correspond to the natural shape of the wearer’s hand, and/ or to position the hand into the desired curve. The shape recited in claim 1 would be within the natural range of motion of a human hand and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide all lines normal to a plane defined by a front surface of the cuff region and passing through the puck reflection area being incident lines, and the puck reflection area being shaped such that, for each incident line: a corresponding reflection line extends through the trap, the reflection line extending from a point of intersection between the incident line and the puck reflection area; the reflection line being at a first angle to a normal line; the normal line being normal to the puck reflection area at the point of intersection; the incident line being at a second angle to the normal line; and the first angle and the second angle are equal for the purpose of providing the desired shape for the glove for fitting the human hand and for catching or deflecting projectiles for the intended end use.
PNG
media_image1.png
434
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein the puck reflection area is at least 90 percent of the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region (FIGS 1-2, the puck reflection area is 100% of the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region).
As to claim 3, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 2, wherein the puck reflection area is at least 95 percent of the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region (FIGS 1-2, the puck reflection area is 100% of the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region).
As to claim 4, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 3, wherein the puck reflection area corresponds to the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region (FIGS 1-2, the puck reflection area is 100% of the total outer surface area of the thumb region, the finger region, and the palm region).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein the puck reflection area has a generally parabolic cross-section (“generally” parabolic and to the degree shown in Applicant’s FIG 7B, see annotated FIG 1 below).
As to claim 6, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 5, wherein: a vertex of the parabolic cross-section is disposed on a finger side of a glove length line (vertex “V” in annotated FIG 1 below); and the glove length line being a shortest line extending from a heel of the goalkeeper catching glove to a point on the trap being furthest from the heel and following a contour of the front portion and the trap (see annotated FIG 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
326
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7, 9-10, 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 7, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 1, wherein:
the front portion comprises an impact resistant member (Sauer padding 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 G spans the entirety of the palm region); and
the impact resistant member defines a shape of the puck reflection area (see annotated FIG 1 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Sauer does not disclose the impact resistant member biases the goalkeeper catching glove toward the at 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.
As to claim 9, Sauer discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 7, 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 7, 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 10, wherein at least a portion of the trap (F in Sauer FIG 3) is inserted between the impact resistant member (H in Sauer FIG 3) and the inner member (D in Sauer FIG 3).
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 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 webbing such as the one taught by Rumer, for the purpose of facilitating catching objects and retaining objects in the glove.
Please note that in the structure resulting from the modification, the trap “comprises” a webbing to the degree the trap “includes” or “contains” a webbing because the trap (Sauer F) would be connected to the webbing (Rumer 35) when the Sauer glove is provided with a webbing.
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 (the combination presented in the rejection of claim 16 results in Rumer’s lacing 36 is connected to Rumer’s webbing 35, both of which are provided on Sauer’s glove).
As to claim 18, Sauer as modified discloses the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 17, wherein the trap further comprises an edge piece covering a peripheral edge of the reinforcement strip (the combination presented in the rejection of claim 16 results in Rumer 34 and 38 covering portions of Rumer’s peripheral edge 36, all of which are provided on Sauer’s glove).
Claim(s) 8 and 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 7 or 10 above, and further in view of Phillips (US 20030039819 A1).
As to claim 8, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 7, 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 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) and Phillips (US 20030039819 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Webster (US 4748690 A).
As to claim 13, Sauer does not disclose the goalkeeper catching glove of claim 11, 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 the 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 the 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