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 of 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are presented.
Claims 1 and 12 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claim 14 is amended.
The present Office action treats claim 1-20 on the merits.
The present Office action is a final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 12/31/2025 are fully considered (see p. 6-12 of the reply).
Regarding Drawings (p. 6-7): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, upon further review of the present disclosure, the amended claims, and Applicant’s arguments (see p. 6 line 8 – p. 7 line 8 of the reply), the objection to the drawings for not showing the feature the width of each the protruding elements is greater than the length of each of each of the protruding elements of claim 15 is withdrawn.
Regarding Claim Objections (p. 7): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s claim amendment has overcome the claim objection set forth in the previous Office action.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (p. 8-9): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to newly amended subject matter which has necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art, which is presented in the rejections below. Applicant’s specific argument that prior art Chen, CN-106901422 “fails to teach or disclose the combination of elements recited in amended independent claim 12... Chen provides no indication that the "connecting layer,""barb[s]," or any other connected component is configured to be varying in size such that "at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments," as claimed. Indeed, Chen does not teach or disclose that any portion of the gloves, let alone the "barb[s]" (analogized to the claimed "protruding elements") are structured to be different” is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because the argument is not commensurate with claim language. “varying in size” and the protruding elements being “structured to be different sizes” are not claimed; what is claimed is “wherein at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments” and “each of the plurality of digit portions comprising a plurality of segments, the plurality of segments having different lengths”, and Chen meets the limitation as set forth in the rejections below. Applicant’s specific argument that Chen does not teach or disclose “that said "barb[s]" could or should be proportional to a dimension of any portion of the glove” is fully considered and is not pervasive in that, as set forth in the rejections below, each corresponding segment has a length, and each protruding element has both a width and a length such that at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments as claimed. Attention is drawn to para 0027 of the disclosure as filed which states “D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the middle segment 143 can be approximately 1/2 of D2, and D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the proximal segment 140 can be approximately 1/3 of D2” such that, consistent with the present disclosure, a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment: in the case of the excerpted statement from para 0027, D1 is proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/2 of D2) in the middle segment, and D1 is also proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/3 of D2”) in the proximal segment even though the factor of proportionality is different between the two segments. In like manner, each segment of Chen has a length; each protruding element of Chen has a length and a width; the width and length of each of the protruding elements is therefore proportional—by some factor—to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments—in at least the same way that Applicant describes a that a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment.
Regarding Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 9-12): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to newly amended subject matter, which has necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art and is addressed in the limitations below.
Applicant specifically argues:
Although the Office Action contends that the term "proportional" merely amounts to
"[f]orming a relationship with other parts or quantities," the Office Action fails to identify where in the cited references such a "relationship" is disclosed or even considered. Action, pp. 4-5 (in the rejection of claims 12-13). Although the Office Action points to Chen's disclosure of "wrap[ping] the user's finger," Chen provides no disclosure or suggestion of varying a size or dimension of any component based on a size or dimension of another component.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive if only because it is not commensurate with claim language; “varying” a size and/or dimension “based on” another size and/or dimension is not claimed; what is claimed is “wherein at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments”, and Chen meets the limitation as set forth in the rejections below.
Applicant further argues:
Moreover, to the extent that the Office is alleging that it is inherent that any component of Chen (or Rullo) is "proportional" to another component, the Office Action fails to satisfy the requirements for inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and MPEP §2112(IV). "The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. ... In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." (MPEP § 2144(IV)) (emphasis in original).
Here, the Office merely (1) asserts that the "barb[s]" of Chen are analogous to the
claimed "protruding elements and (2) asserts that "proportional" merely amounts to "a part or amount considered in relation to a whole" (see, Office Action, p. 6), without identifying any portion of Chen (or any other reference) that indicates how the size or dimensions of the "barb[s]" (analogized to the claimed "protruding elements") are considered in relation to any other portion of the "climbing device 100" (analogized to the claimed "glove"). Neither Chen nor Rullo (or any of the other references of record) provide a basis for construing the "barb[s]" (or any other component) as being "proportional to a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments [of each digit portion]," as claimed.
Examiner’s reply:
This argument is fully considered and is not persuasive. As provided for in MPEP 2111.01, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with and in light of the specification and the BRI doesn't mean the broadest possible interpretation. The meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. In the present case, as stated above in addressing Applicant’s arguments directed to the 35 USC 102 rejections: para 0027 of the disclosure as filed states “D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the middle segment 143 can be approximately 1/2 of D2, and D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the proximal segment 140 can be approximately 1/3 of D2” such that, consistent with the present disclosure, a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment: in the case of the excerpted statement from para 0027, D1 is proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/2 of D2”) in the middle segment, and D1 is also proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/3 of D2”) in the proximal segment even though the factor of proportionality is different between the two segments. In like manner, each segment of Chen has at least a length and a width; each protruding element of Chen has a length and a width; the width and length of each of the protruding elements is therefore proportional—by some factor—to a corresponding length and/or width of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments—in at least the same way that Applicant describes a that a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment.
Applicant’s further arguments directed to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 3-9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 19-20 (see p. 11-12 of the reply of 12/31/2025) are fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments of p. 11-12 directed to the argued dependent claims 3-9, 11, 15-16, 18, and 19-20 is that each of the dependent claims is argued to be allowable by virtue of depending from the argued independent claims 1 and 12; however, this argument is not persuasive because claims 1 and 12 are not allowable; see rejections below and also Examiner’s addressing of Applicant’s specific arguments directed to the independent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Cutliff, US 183,375, newly cited].
Regarding claim 12:
Cutliff discloses (Figs. 1-2):
A climbing (glove is appropriate for climbing such that it is a climbing glove; in addition, the glove meets all limitations as set forth hereinbelow such that it is a climbing glove) glove A (i.e. one of “gloves A”; col. 1 line 35) comprising:
a palm portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a detail below); and
a plurality of digit portions (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a detail below) integrally formed with the palm portion, each of the plurality of digit portions comprising a plurality of segments (two segments of each of the two digit portions are identified in annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below, the plurality of segments having different lengths (Figs. 1-2; it is noted the distal segments –most remote from the palm portion—shorter longer than the proximal segments—closest to the palm portion; it is noted the figures of Cutliff are not expressly to scale; however, the Applicant has stated that finger portion sections are “proximal phalange”, “middle phalange”, and “distal phalange” sections (para 23 as filed) such that Cutliff has similar sections configured to correspond to proximal, middle, and distal finger bones—longer sections configured to correspond to a wearer’s proximal phalanges and shorter sections configured to correspond to a wearer’s distal phalanges; it is further noted that the glove of Cutliff will fit wearers of different hand sizes differently such that Cutliff has proximal sections longer than distal sections thereof in relation to a wearer whose distal finger bones are shorter than his proximal finger bones);
wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises a plurality of protruding elements B (i.e. “fangs, hooks, or claws B”; col. 1 lines 37-38) distributed among the plurality of segments (as in annotated Figs. 1-2 – a detail below);
each of the plurality of protruding elements extending from an outermost surface of each digit portion at an angle (“bent backward toward the wrist”; col. 1 lines 47-48) and shown in Figs. 1-2) and structured to engage with a surface of a tree (each protruding element B is structured to engaged with and is capable of engaging with a variety of undisclosed surfaces including a surface of a tree), the angle being an acute angle (“bent backward toward the wrist”; col. 1 lines 47-48) and shown in Figs. 1-2);
wherein at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments (each protruding element has a width and length in order to permit its manipulation of cotton as described in col. 1 line 17; each of the segments has a length so as to cover the length of a respective phalanx; the width of each protruding element is a proportion of the length of each segment from which the protruding element extends, and the length of each protruding element is a proportion of the length of each segment from which the protruding element extends; it is noted the term “proportional” means “Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.”; proportional. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportional; and the term “proportion” means “A part or amount considered in relation to a whole”; proportion. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportion); moreover, para 0027 of the disclosure as filed states “D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the middle segment 143 can be approximately 1/2 of D2, and D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the proximal segment 140 can be approximately 1/3 of D2” such that, consistent with the present disclosure, a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment: in the case of the excerpted statement from para 0027, D1 is proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/2 of D2”) in the middle segment, and D1 is also proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/3 of D2”) in the proximal segment even though the factor of proportionality is different between the two segments; accordingly, in Cufliff, a length of each protruding element is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment whether or not the factor by which each is proportional is the same from segment-to-segment).
PNG
media_image1.png
789
1174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13:
Cutliff discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Cutliff further discloses wherein the width of each of the protruding elements is proportional to the width of the corresponding digit portion (each protruding element has a width and length in order to permit its manipulation of cotton as described in col. 1 line 17; each of the digit portions has a width so as to cover a wearer’s finger from side-to-side; the width of each protruding element is a proportion of the width of each digit portion from which the protruding element extends).
Regarding claim 14:
Cutliff discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Cutliff further discloses wherein the length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to the length of the corresponding digit portion (each protruding element has a width and length in order to permit its manipulation of cotton as described in col. 1 line 17; each of the digit portions has a length so as to cover a wearer’s finger from palm portion to finger tip; the length of each protruding element is a proportion of the length of each digit portion from which the protruding element extends).
Regarding claim 17:
Cutliff discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Cutliff further discloses wherein the angle is based on a size of a section of the corresponding digit portion.
(In Cutliff, each of the plurality of protruding elements is extending at an angle, the angle being an acute angle; see above treatment of claim 12. Insofar as Cutliff comprises an angle, Cutliff meets the limitation “wherein the angle is based on a size of a section of the corresponding digit portion” insofar as the manner by which the angle is based is treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that MPEP 2113 recites “Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In the present case, Chen meets the limitation although Chen does not specify the process by which the angle is based.)
Regarding claim 18:
Cutliff discloses The climbing glove of claim 17, as set forth above.
Cutliff further discloses wherein the plurality of digit portions include four finger portions and one thumb portion (Figs. 1-2), each of the finger portions including three sections and the thumb portion including two sections (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19:
Cutliff discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Cutliff further discloses wherein each of the protruding elements comprises a first portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – b detail below) and a second portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – b detail below), the first portion being disposed on the outermost surface of the glove (as in annotated Figs. 1-2 – b detail below), the second portion being disposed on an inward facing surface of the glove (as in annotated Figs. 1-2 – b detail below), the first portion being coupled to the second portion (via each portion being a portion of a singular “fang[], hook[], or claw[] B” of “doubled wire” having a “bent” “shank” to form “loop, a” and “having been inserted through...the glove”; col. 1 lines 37-48).
PNG
media_image2.png
792
1174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20:
Cutliff discloses The climbing glove of claim 19, as set forth above.
Cutliff further discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are integrally formed (via each portion being a portion of a singular “fang[], hook[], or claw[] B” of “doubled wire” having a “bent” “shank” to form “loop, a” and “having been inserted through...the glove”; col. 1 lines 37-48).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Chen, CN-106901422-A, previously cited].
Regarding claim 12:
Chen discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A climbing (“climbing”; para 28) glove (“glove”; para 30) 100 comprising:
a palm portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below); and
a plurality of digit portions (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below) integrally formed with the palm portion (Fig. 3), each of the plurality of digit portions comprising a plurality of segments (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below), the plurality of segments having different lengths (see annotated Fig. 3 – a below; wherein the distal segment—most remote from the palm portion—is shorter than the proximal segment—closest to the palm portion—of each digit portion; it is noted the Applicant has stated that finger portion sections are “proximal phalange”, “middle phalange”, and “distal phalange” sections (para 23 as filed) such that Chen has similar sections configured to correspond to proximal, middle, and distal finger bones—longer sections configured to correspond to a wearer’s proximal phalanges and shorter sections configured to correspond to a wearer’s distal phalanges; it is further noted that the glove of Chen will fit wearers of different hand sizes differently such that Chen has proximal sections longer than distal sections thereof in relation to a wearer whose distal finger bones are shorter than his proximal finger bones);
wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises a plurality of protruding elements 122 distributed among the plurality of segments (as in annotated Fig. 3 – a below);
each of the plurality of protruding elements extending from an outermost surface of each digit portion at an angle (as in each of Figs. 4-5; it is noted that numeral 122 is not provided on either of Figs. 4 or 5; however, Fig. 7 shows a protruding element 122 extending from second attachment plate 121 at an angle in the same way that the protruding elements of each of Figs. 4 and 5 extend from an outermost surface of the glove) and structured to engage with a surface of a tree (“barb 122 can be directly contacted with a glove contact object to firmly grasp the contact object”; para 34; glove is for “grasping...on...a cliff, a wall and other objects”; para 4; it is noted Chen does not specify each and every object that each of the protruding elements 122 is capable of engaging with; however, Chen meets the limitation in that each of protruding elements 122 can engage with a tree surface in the same way that it is configured to grasp the contact object as described in para 34), the angle being an acute angle (as in each of Figs. 4-5; it is noted that numeral 122 is not provided on either of Figs. 4 or 5; however, Fig. 7 shows a protruding element 122 extending from second attachment plate 121 at an acute angle in the same way that the protruding elements of each of Figs. 4 and 5 extend from an outermost surface of the glove);
wherein at least one of a width of a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments (each protruding element has a width and length in order to permit its grasping of an object as described in para 34; each of the segments has a length so as to cover a phalangeal bone of a wearer in the up-down direction as presented to the viewer in Fig. 3; the width of each protruding element is a proportion of the length of each segment, and the length of each protruding element is a proportion of the length of each segment from which the protruding element extends; it is noted the term “proportional” means “Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.”; proportional. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportional; and the term “proportion” means “A part or amount considered in relation to a whole”; proportion. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportion); moreover, para 0027 of the disclosure as filed states “D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the middle segment 143 can be approximately 1/2 of D2, and D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the proximal segment 140 can be approximately 1/3 of D2” such that, consistent with the present disclosure, a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment: in the case of the excerpted statement from para 0027, D1 is proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/2 of D2”) in the middle segment, and D1 is also proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/3 of D2”) in the proximal segment even though the factor of proportionality is different between the two segments; accordingly, in Chen, a length of each protruding element is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment and a width of each protruding element is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment whether or not the factor by which each is proportional is the same from segment-to-segment).
PNG
media_image3.png
823
625
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Chen further discloses wherein the width of each of the protruding elements is proportional to the width of the corresponding digit portion (each protruding element has a width and length in order to permit its grasping of an object as described in para 34; each of the digit portions has a width and a length as evidenced in Figs. 1-3 and so as for it to “wrap the user’s finger”; para 30; a width of each protruding element is a proportion of a width of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; a width of each protruding element is a proportion of a length of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; a length of each protruding element is a proportion of a width of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; a length of each protruding element is a proportion of a length of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; it is noted the term “proportional” means “Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.”; proportional. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportional; and the term “proportion” means “A part or amount considered in relation to a whole”; proportion. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportion).
Regarding claim 14:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Chen further discloses wherein the length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to the length of the corresponding digit portion (each protruding element has a width and length in order to permit its grasping of an object as described in para 34; each of the digit portions has a width and a length as evidenced in Figs. 1-3 and so as for it to “wrap the user’s finger”; para 30; a width of each protruding element is a proportion of a width of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; a width of each protruding element is a proportion of a length of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; a length of each protruding element is a proportion of a width of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; a length of each protruding element is a proportion of a length of the digit portion from which the protruding element extends; it is noted the term “proportional” means “Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.”; proportional. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportional; and the term “proportion” means “A part or amount considered in relation to a whole”; proportion. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportion).
Regarding claim 17:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Chen further discloses wherein the angle is based on a size of a section of the corresponding digit portion.
(In Chen, each of the plurality of protruding elements is extending at an angle, the angle being an acute angle; see above treatment of claim 12. Insofar as Chen comprises an angle, Chen meets the limitation “wherein the angle is based on a size of a section of the corresponding digit portion” insofar as the manner by which the angle is based is treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that MPEP 2113 recites “Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In the present case, Chen meets the limitation although Chen does not specify the process by which the angle is based.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] in view of [Rullo, US 4,875,550, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Chen discloses (Figs. 1-3):
A climbing (“climbing”; para 28) glove (“glove”; para 30) 100 comprising:
a palm portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 12); and
a plurality of digit portions (see annotated Fig. 3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 12) arranged adjacent (as in annotated Fig. 3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 12) to the palm portion, each of the plurality of digit portions comprising a plurality of segments (see annotated Fig. 3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 12);
wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises:
a plurality of protruding elements 122 distributed among the plurality of segments (as in annotated Fig. 3 – a presented in above addressing of claim 12), each of the plurality of protruding elements configured to engage with a surface of a tree (“barb 122 can be directly contacted with a glove contact object to firmly grasp the contact object”; para 34; glove is for “grasping...on...a cliff, a wall and other objects”; para 4; it is noted Chen does not specify each and every object that each of the protruding elements 122 is capable of engaging with; however, Chen meets the limitation in that each of protruding elements 122 can engage with a tree surface in the same way that it is configured to grasp the contact object as described in para 34);
wherein each of the plurality of protruding elements is configured to extend from an outermost surface of the glove at an angle less than 90 degrees (as in each of Figs. 4-5; it is noted that numeral 122 is not provided on either of Figs. 4 or 5; however, Fig. 7 shows a protruding element 122 extending from second attachment plate 121 at an angle less than 90 degrees in the same way that the protruding elements of each of Figs. 4 and 5 extend from an outermost surface of the glove);
wherein at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments (each segment of Chen has at least a length (so as to cover a phalangeal bone of a wearer in the up-down direction as presented to the viewer in Fig. 3) and a width (so as to cover a phalangeal bone of a wearer in the left-right direction as presented to the viewer in Fig. 3); each protruding element of Chen has a length and a width; the width of each protruding element is proportional to the width of its corresponding segment; the width of each protruding element is proportional to the length of its corresponding segment; the length of each protruding element is proportional to the width of its corresponding segment; and the length of each protruding element is proportional to the length of its corresponding segment; it is noted the term “proportional” means “Forming a relationship with other parts or quantities; being in proportion.”; proportional. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportional; and the term “proportion” means “A part or amount considered in relation to a whole”; proportion. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 30 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/proportion); moreover, para 0027 of the disclosure as filed states “D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the middle segment 143 can be approximately 1/2 of D2, and D1 of the protruding element 135 disposed on the proximal segment 140 can be approximately 1/3 of D2” such that, consistent with the present disclosure, a given dimension can be proportional to another given dimension even when the proportionality factor differs from segment-to-segment: in the case of the excerpted statement from para 0027, D1 is proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/2 of D2”) in the middle segment, and D1 is also proportional to D2 (i.e. “can be approximately 1/3 of D2”) in the proximal segment even though the factor of proportionality is different between the two segments; accordingly, in Chen, a length and a width of each protruding element is proportional to a corresponding segment whether or not the factor by which the protruding element length and/or width is proportional to the segment length and/or width is the same from segment-to-segment.).
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of protruding elements has a tetrahedral shape.
In describing a protruding element 122, Chen teaches a protruding element “may be formed by press forming, or further, by press cutting...the...barbs 122 may be...barbs that are injection molded with” connecting layer 121. As embodied in Figs. 1-3, a protruding element 122 appears to have a triangular shape, and the apparent section views of each of Figs. 4, 5, and 7 appear to show curved top and bottom surfaces of a protruding element 122 such that the shape of a protruding element 122 of Chen resembles a shape of the “generally triangular or tetrahedral shape” of Figs. 3 and 4 of the present disclosure (para [0028] and para [0026] as filed, respectively). However, Chen does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of protruding elements has a tetrahedral shape.
However, Rullo teaches (Fig. 1) a garment 8 configured to be worn (col. 2 line 28) by a climber (Abstract) wherein a protruding element 7 has a tetrahedral shape (“prismatic-shaped...defined by three sides 10, 11 and 11’” and “rear surface 6”, with “Surface 10” forming a “bottom surface” thereof and “sides 11 and 11’...having a common ridge line 9 at the top...where they intersect each other” (col. 2 lines 30-38 such that the protruding element 7 has a tetrahedral shape defined by 6, 10, 11, and 11’; refer also to tetrahedral shape as embodied in Figs. 1, 2a, and 4; in like manner, Fig. 2b also shows a tetrahedral shape defined by 10a, 11a, 11a’, and 6a).
Rullo further teaches the protruding element 7 is appropriate for “climbing poles or trees...utility poles” (col. 1 lines 6-11) and is “for penetrating...wood”; col. 1 line 50).
It 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 to have modified the climbing glove of Chen such that each of the plurality of protruding elements has a tetrahedral shape in order to make the glove appropriate for climbing a tree and/or a utility pole, as taught by Rullo (col. 1 lines 6-11) and/or to render the glove appropriate for penetrating wood, as also taught by Rullo (col. 1 line 50).
Regarding claim 2:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen further discloses wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises at least a proximal segment (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below) and a distal segment (see annotated Fig. 3 – b below), each of the proximal segment and the distal segment comprising at least one of the plurality of protruding elements (as in annotated Fig. 3 – b below).
PNG
media_image4.png
823
625
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen further discloses wherein the glove further comprises a wrist portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – c below) structured to encircle a wrist of a climber.
PNG
media_image5.png
886
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] and [Rullo, US 4,875,550] as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of [Taylor, US 883,761, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 2, as set forth above.
Although Chen further discloses wherein the plurality of digit portions include four finger portions (see annotated Fig. 3 – d below) each comprising a proximal and a distal segment (Fig. 3), each of the proximal segment and the distal segment comprising at least one of the plurality of protruding elements (Fig. 3) and one thumb portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – d below), the modified Chen as applied to claim 2 above does not meet the limitations of claim 3 in that parent claim 2 requires a plurality of digit portions arranged adjacent to the palm portion; wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises: a plurality of protruding elements, each of the plurality of protruding elements configured to engage with a surface of a tree; wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises at least a proximal segment and a distal segment, each of the proximal segment and the distal segment comprising at least one of the plurality of protruding elements insofar as the thumb portion (see annotated Fig. 3 – d below) of Chen does not comprise a plurality of protruding elements.
However, Taylor teaches a glove (title) for climbing (p. 1 lines 13-15) wherein, in addition to finger portions, a thumb portion is provided with a protruding element 6 (“for the thumb is provided with a hook- shaped spur 6, arranged upon its front adjacent to its outer end”; p. 1 lines 48-50).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that the proximal segment and distal segment of its thumb portion are both provided with protruding elements, each of the plurality of protruding elements configured to engage with a surface of a tree; wherein each of the plurality of protruding elements is configured to extend from an outermost surface of the glove at an angle less than 90 degrees, wherein at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments; and wherein each of the plurality of protruding elements has a tetrahedral shape in order to yield the predictable result of a glove whose finger portions and thumb portion are configured to assist in climbing via their protruding elements; in adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the plurality of digit portions comprises four finger portions and a thumb portion, wherein the climbing glove would, in addition, meet claim 1 and claim 2 limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
886
684
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Chen in view of Rullo and Taylor teach The climbing glove of claim 3, as set forth above.
Chen further discloses wherein each of the digit portions further comprises a middle segment (see annotated Fig. 3 – e below).
PNG
media_image7.png
823
625
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] and [Rullo, US 4,875,550] as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of [Lugo, US 2015/0366228, previously cited].
Regarding claim 5:
Chen in view of Rullo teaches The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein a width of each of the plurality of protruding elements is approximately equal to a length of each of the plurality of protruding elements.
However, Lugo teaches a “glove for facilitating grasping” (Abstract) comprising protruding elements 114 wherein “the size (height, width, length, etc.) of each...blade may be varied” (para 35). Lugo further teaches “each of these dimensions...may be varied to meet a particular operating condition or requirement” (para 44).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that wherein a width of each of the plurality of protruding elements is approximately equal to a length of each of the plurality of protruding elements in order to yield the predictable result of facilitating climbing of a surface in such a way as to avoid the gouging of said surface; one of ordinary skill would expect a protruding element with its length approximately equal to its width to penetrate less deeply into the surface and to distribute the forces upon the surface across the width such one of ordinary skill would expect less gouging would occur.
Regarding claim 6:
Chen in view of Rullo teaches The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein a width of each of the plurality of protruding elements is approximately equal to one half the length of each of the plurality of protruding elements.
However, Lugo teaches a “glove for facilitating grasping” (Abstract) comprising protruding elements 114 wherein “the size (height, width, length, etc.) of each...blade may be varied” (para 35). Lugo further teaches “each of these dimensions...may be varied to meet a particular operating condition or requirement” (para 44).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that wherein a width of each of the plurality of protruding elements is approximately equal to one half the length of each of the plurality of protruding elements in order to yield the predictable result of facilitating climbing of a surface in such a way as to penetrate deeply into the surface and achieve good grip between protruding element and surface; one of ordinary skill would expect a protruding element with its length approximately equal to one half its width to penetrate deeply into the surface and to distribute the forces upon the surface across the width such one of ordinary skill would expect good climbing grip between protruding element and surface to be achieved.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] and [Rullo, US 4,875,550] as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of [Journet, FR-2567373-A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of protruding elements comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being disposed on a first surface of the glove and the second portion being disposed on a second surface of the glove, wherein the first surface is outward facing and the second surface is inward facing.
However, Journet teaches a glove (Abstract) for climbing (p. 3 lines 33-34; lines 38-39) wherein a protruding element comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being disposed on a first surface of the glove and the second portion being disposed on a second surface of the glove, wherein the first surface is outward facing and the second surface is inward facing (“riveted with an enlarged head—see detail in fig 2 (2A) and (2B) inside the glove (1)”; p. 3 lines 10-11; Fig. 2). Journet further teaches the protruding element is “adaptable by riveting to existing gloves” (p. 4 line 3).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that each of the protruding elements comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being disposed on a first surface of the glove and the second portion being disposed on a second surface of the glove, wherein the first surface is outward facing and the second surface is inward facing in order to secure each protruding element to the glove via the combined first and second portions, as suggested by Journet (p. 3 lines 10-11; p. 4 line 3).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] and [Rullo, US 4,875,550] as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of [Walker, US 3,787,898, previously cited].
Regarding claim 8:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the glove comprises natural fibers.
However, Walker teaches a glove comprises natural fibers (“Cotton”; col. 5 line 55). Walker further teaches the natural fibers have the “ability to absorb body moisture” (col. 5 line 55).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that the glove comprises natural fibers in order to permit the glove to absorb body moisture, as taught by Walker (col. 5 line 55).
Regarding claim 9:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 1, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the glove comprises synthetic fibers.
However, Walker teaches a glove comprises synthetic fibers (“Nylon -- very strong, resilient and elastic, abrasion resistant” or “Polyester -- outstanding in characteristic of the ability to resist wrinkling, with elastic memory permitting it to spring back into shape, high abrasion resistance and high strength”; col. 6 lines 11-18).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that the glove comprises synthetic nylon fibers in order to render the glove strong, resilient, elastic, and/or abrasion resistant; and/or such that the glove comprises synthetic polyester fibers in order to render the glove resistant to wrinkling, permit it to spring back into shape, afford high abrasion resistance, and/or impart high strength.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] and [Rullo, US 4,875,550] as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of [McGrew, US 6,035,444, previously cited].
Regarding claim 11:
Chen in view of Rullo teach The climbing glove of claim 10, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose the wrist portion comprises an elastic cuff.
However, McGrew teaches a glove (Abstract) configured to provide “excellent grippage” (Abstract) wherein a wrist portion comprises an elastic cuff: “FIG. 7 discloses a variation of the glove, wherein an extended cuff 20d has an elastic gather 50 at its end for use in harsh, wintry conditions”; col. 4 lines 7-9).
It 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 to have modified the modified Chen such that its wrist portion comprises an elastic cuff in order to permit the glove to wrap around a wrist elastically so as to afford a close fit between wrist and the wearer’s wrist and the wrist portion in order to maintain heat within the glove and/or prevent ingress of wintry precipitation or wind within the glove when worn.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] in view of [Lugo, US 2015/0366228, previously cited].
Regarding claim 15:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the width of each of the protruding elements is greater than the length of each of the protruding elements.
However, Lugo teaches a “glove for facilitating grasping” (Abstract) comprising protruding elements 114 wherein “the size (height, width, length, etc.) of each...blade may be varied” (para 35). Lugo further teaches “each of these dimensions...may be varied to meet a particular operating condition or requirement” (para 44).
It 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 to have modified the glove of Chen such that the width of each of the protruding elements is greater than the length of each of the protruding elements in order to yield the predictable result of facilitating climbing of a surface in such a way as to avoid the gouging of said surface; one of ordinary skill would expect a protruding element with a greater width than its length to penetrate less deeply into the surface and to distribute the forces upon the surface across the width such one of ordinary skill would expect less gouging would occur.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] in view of [Rullo, US 4,875,550, previously cited].
Regarding claim 16:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein each of the protruding elements is tetrahedral in shape.
However, Rullo teaches (Fig. 1) a garment 8 configured to be worn (col. 2 line 28) by a climber (Abstract) wherein a protruding element 7 has a tetrahedral shape (“prismatic-shaped...defined by three sides 10, 11 and 11’” and “rear surface 6”, with “Surface 10” forming a “bottom surface” thereof and “sides 11 and 11’...having a common ridge line 9 at the top...where they intersect each other” (col. 2 lines 30-38 such that the protruding element 7 has a tetrahedral shape defined by 6, 10, 11, and 11’; refer also to tetrahedral shape as embodied in Figs. 1, 2a, and 4; in like manner, Fig. 2b also shows a tetrahedral shape defined by 10a, 11a, 11a’, and 6a).
Rullo further teaches the protruding element 7 is appropriate for “climbing poles or trees...utility poles” (col. 1 lines 6-11) and is “for penetrating...wood”; col. 1 line 50).
It 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 to have modified the climbing glove of Chen such that each of the plurality of protruding elements is tetrahedral in shape in order to make the glove appropriate for climbing a tree and/or a utility pole, as taught by Rullo (col. 1 lines 6-11) and/or to render the glove appropriate for penetrating wood, as also taught by Rullo (col. 1 line 50).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] in view of [Taylor, US 883,761, previously cited].
Regarding claim 18:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 17, as set forth above.
Although Chen further discloses wherein the plurality of digit portions include four finger portions (Fig. 3) and one thumb portion (Fig. 3), each of the finger portions including three sections (Fig. 3) and the thumb portion including two sections (Fig. 3), Chen does not meet the limitations of claim 18 in that parent claim 12 requires a plurality of digit portions integrally formed with the palm portion; wherein each of the plurality of digit portions comprises a plurality of protruding elements distributed along each of the digit portions insofar as the thumb portion of Chen does not comprise a plurality of protruding elements.
However, Taylor teaches a glove (title) for climbing (p. 1 lines 13-15) wherein, in addition to finger portions, a thumb portion is provided with a protruding element 6 (“for the thumb is provided with a hook- shaped spur 6, arranged upon its front adjacent to its outer end”; p. 1 lines 48-50).
It 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 to have modified the climbing glove of Chen such that its thumb portion is provided with a plurality of protruding elements distributed among the plurality of segments; each of the plurality of protruding elements extending from an outermost surface of each digit portion at an angle and structured to engage with a surface of a tree, the angle being an acute angle; wherein at least one of a width or a length of each of the protruding elements is proportional to a corresponding length of a corresponding segment of the plurality of segments; wherein the angle is based on a size of a section of the corresponding digit portion; in order to yield the predictable result of a glove whose finger portions and thumb portion are configured to assist in climbing via their protruding elements; in adopting the modification, one would arrive at wherein the plurality of digit portions include four finger portions and one thumb portion, each of the finger portions including three sections and the thumb portion including two sections as claimed further wherein the climbing glove would, in addition, meet claim 12 and claim 17 limitations.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Chen, CN-106901422-A] in view of [Journet, FR-2567373-A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 19:
Chen discloses The climbing glove of claim 12, as set forth above.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein each of the protruding elements comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being disposed on the outermost surface of the glove, the second portion being disposed on an inward facing surface of the glove, the first portion being coupled to the second portion.
However, Journet teaches a glove (Abstract) for climbing (p. 3 lines 33-34; lines 38-39) wherein a protruding element comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being disposed on the outermost surface of the glove, the second portion being disposed on an inward facing surface of the glove, the first portion being coupled to the second portion (“riveted with an enlarged head—see detail in fig 2 (2A) and (2B) inside the glove (1)”; p. 3 lines 10-11; Fig. 2). Journet further teaches the protruding element is “adaptable by riveting to existing gloves” (p. 4 line 3).
It 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 to have modified the climbing glove of Chen such that each of the protruding elements comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being disposed on the outermost surface of the glove, the second portion being disposed on an inward facing surface of the glove, the first portion being coupled to the second portion in order to secure each protruding element to the glove via the combined first and second portions, as suggested by Journet (p. 3 lines 10-11; p. 4 line 3).
Regarding claim 20:
Chen in view of Journet teach The climbing glove of claim 19, as set forth above.
The modified Chen further meets the limitation wherein the first portion and the second portion are integrally formed (the first and second portion unite so as to secure each protruding element to the digit portions; see above treatment of claim 19. In so uniting, the first portion of each is integrally formed with the second portion of each such that the first portion and the second portion are integrally formed as claimed).
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 GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights