DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sterilization system, particularly the misting system thereof (claim 4), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that para 0033 of the applicant’s specification states that the lighting 106 can be replaced by UV light sources; however, no reference is made to the figures regarding the claimed “misting system”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,488. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Firstly, note that the use of hydrogen peroxide as a sanitizing agent is considered old and known in the art in order to kill germs quickly and effectively. All the remaining limitations within claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 of the current application can be found within claims 1 and 3-19 of US 12,329,488. However, the claims of the patent are much more specific than that of the claims of the current application. Because the broad claims of the current application are anticipated by the more specific claims of the patent, the claims of the current application are not patentably distinct. Note that it has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated" by the "species" within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,488 in view of BALKIN et al. (US 8,651,323 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As discussed above, all of the limitations (besides the sanitizing agent being hydrogen peroxide) within claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 of the current application can be found within claims 1 and 3-19 of US 12,329,488. However, US 12,329,488 fails to disclose the housing being configured for wall-mounting. BALKIN discloses a glove dispensing apparatus comprising a housing (30, 32, 34) being configured for wall-mounting in order to allow the glove dispensing apparatus to be easily accessible for a user (Figures 1 and 10-17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have configured the housing of US 12,329,488 for wall mounting, in light of the teachings of BALKIN, in order to allow the glove dispensing apparatus to be easily accessible for a user.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,488 in view of BALKIN et al. (US 8,651,323 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As discussed above, all of the limitations (besides the sanitizing agent being hydrogen peroxide) within claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 of the current application can be found within claims 1 and 3-19 of US 12,329,488. However, US 12,329,488 fails to disclose a counter configured to track a number of gloves dispensed from the at least one stack. BALKIN discloses a glove dispensing apparatus comprising a counter capable of functioning to track a number of gloves dispensed from the at least one stack in order to inform a user when a new stack of gloves need to be installed (col. 13, lines 7-25). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the glove dispensing apparatus of US 12,329,488 with a counter, in light of the teachings of BALKIN, in order to inform a user when a new stack of gloves need to be installed.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,488 in view of HOWARD (US 2018/0317686 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As discussed above, all of the limitations (besides the sanitizing agent being hydrogen peroxide) within claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 of the current application can be found within claims 1 and 3-19 of US 12,329,488. However, US 12,329,488 fails to discloses the gas source being further configured to direct an auxiliary air stream towards a user's hands external to the foremost glove to aid in drying the user's hands. HOWARD discloses a gas nozzle (connected to a gas source) directing an auxiliary air stream towards a user’s hands external to a foremost glove to aid in drying a user’s hands in order to remove sweat to prevent the glove from clinging to the user’s hands (para 0029) (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have configured the gas source of US 12,329,488 to direct an auxiliary air stream towards a user's hands external to the foremost glove to aid in drying the user's hands, in light of the teachings of HOWARD, in order to remove sweat to prevent the glove from clinging to the user’s hands.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11 and 16-18 of the patent disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 of the instant application other than the claimed "sanitizing system" and corresponding structure associated therewith. DALLY discloses a glove dispensing apparatus (100) comprising a sterilization system (322) configured to sanitize a glove (318) during donning by a user in order to prevent the spread of germs and exposure thereto (Fig. 3). DALLY discloses that the sterilization system (322) including an ultraviolet light source that irradiates the glove and/or a misting system (chemical disinfectant sprayer/aerosolizer) configured to apply a sanitizing agent (alcohol; note that the use of hydrogen peroxide is considered old and known in the art) to the glove (col. 8, lines 16-37 and col. 10, lines 56-67). Additionally, DALLY discloses a sensor (324) configured to detect a proximity of a user’s hand, and wherein, responsive to a signal generated by the sensor, activating the sterilization system (322) (Fig. 3) (col. 8, lines 41-46 and col. 10, lines 56-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the glove dispensing apparatus of 12,201,393 with a sterilization system, in light of the teachings of DALLY, in order to prevent the spread of germs and exposure thereto.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1) and in further view of BALKIN et al. (US 8,651,323 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As discussed above, claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1). However, US 12,201,393 in view of DALLY fails to teach the housing being configured for wall-mounting. BALKIN discloses a glove dispensing apparatus comprising a housing (30, 32, 34) being configured for wall-mounting in order to allow the glove dispensing apparatus to be easily accessible for a user (Figures 1 and 10-17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have configured the housing of US 12,201,393 in view of DALLY for wall mounting, in light of the teachings of BALKIN, in order to allow the glove dispensing apparatus to be easily accessible for a user.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1) and in further view of BALKIN et al. (US 8,651,323 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As discussed above, claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1). However, US 12,201,393 in view of DALLY fails to disclose a counter configured to track a number of gloves dispensed from the at least one stack. BALKIN discloses a glove dispensing apparatus comprising a counter capable of functioning to track a number of gloves dispensed from the at least one stack in order to inform a user when a new stack of gloves need to be installed (col. 13, lines 7-25). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the glove dispensing apparatus of US 12,201,393 in view of DALLY with a counter, in light of the teachings of BALKIN, in order to inform a user when a new stack of gloves need to be installed.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1) and in further view of HOWARD (US 2018/0317686 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As discussed above, claims 1, 3-8 and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,201,393 in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1). However, US 12,201,393 in view of DALLY fails to discloses the gas source being further configured to direct an auxiliary air stream towards a user's hands external to the foremost glove to aid in drying the user's hands. HOWARD discloses a gas nozzle (connected to a gas source) directing an auxiliary air stream towards a user’s hands external to a foremost glove to aid in drying a user’s hands in order to remove sweat to prevent the glove from clinging to the user’s hands (para 0029) (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have configured the gas source of US 12,201,393 in view of DALLY to direct an auxiliary air stream towards a user's hands external to the foremost glove to aid in drying the user's hands, in light of the teachings of HOWARD, in order to remove sweat to prevent the glove from clinging to the user’s hands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BALKIN et al. (US 8,651,323 B2) in view of DALLY (US 11,350,801 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, BALKIN discloses a glove dispensing apparatus, comprising: a housing (30, 32, 34) (Fig. 1); at least one glove holder (104; note elements 106, 108 thereof) coupled to the housing (30, 32, 34), the at least one glove holder configured to support at least one stack (154) of disposable gloves (hand protection barriers 144), wherein each glove (144) in the at least one stack (154) defines an entry portion (around 142) oriented for receiving a user's hand (Figures 1, 3-13); at least one gas nozzle (80, 82, 84) coupled to the housing (30, 32, 34), the at least one gas nozzle (80, 82, 84) positioned stationary relative to the housing (nozzles located within nozzle stand 76 that is connected to 32 within aperture 77; Figures 1-2) and externally proximate to the at least one stack of disposable gloves (Fig. 9), the at least one gas nozzle oriented to direct gas towards the entry portion of a foremost glove in the at least one stack (Fig. 9); and a gas source (120) in fluid communication (through tubes and valves) with the at least one gas nozzle (80, 82, 84), wherein the gas source (120) is configured to deliver gas through the at least one gas nozzle (80, 82, 84) and into the entry portion of the foremost glove to thereby inflate said foremost glove (Figures 1-3 and 7-9). Note that “a glove” is being interpreted as “a garment covering the hand” (note that a “mitten” is a type of glove and doesn’t have separate finger portions). Accordingly, the hand protection barrier (144) of BALKIN can be considered a “glove” as claimed. For future reference, note that incorporating the dispensing apparatus of BALKIN with hand protection barriers having separate finger portions would only involve routine skill in the art and would be beneficial in allowing the dispensing apparatus of BALKIN to dispense different types of gloves used for different purposes and/or for longer use (i.e. better fit). However, BALKIN fails to disclose a sterilization system operatively associated with the apparatus and configured to sanitize at least the foremost glove prior to or during donning by a user.
DALLY discloses a glove dispensing apparatus (100) comprising a sterilization system (322) configured to sanitize a glove (318) during donning by a user in order to prevent the spread of germs and exposure thereto (Fig. 3). DALLY discloses that the sterilization system (322) including an ultraviolet light source that irradiates the glove and/or a misting system (chemical disinfectant sprayer/aerosolizer) configured to apply a sanitizing agent to the glove (col. 8, lines 16-37 and col. 10, lines 56-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the glove dispensing apparatus of BALKIN with a sterilization system, in light of the teachings of DALLY, in order to prevent the spread of germs and exposure thereto.
Regarding claim 2, BALKIN discloses the housing (30, 32, 34) being configured for wall mounting (Figures 10-17).
Regarding claim 5, BALKIN in view of DALLY discloses a glove dispensing apparatus comprising a sterilization system having a misting system for applying a sanitizing agent as discussed above. However, BALKIN in view of DALLY fails to disclose the sanitizing agent being one of hydrogen peroxide or alcohol. The use of hydrogen peroxide and alcohol as a sanitizing agents is considered old and known in the art in order to kill germs quickly and effectively. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the sanitization agent of BALKIN in view of DALLY as one of hydrogen peroxide or alcohol because such is considered old and known in the art in order to kill germs quickly and effectively.
Regarding claim 6, BALKIN discloses at least one sensor (92 of 88) configured to detect a proximity of a user's hand, and wherein, responsive to a signal generated by the at least one sensor, activating the gas source (col. 12, Line 33 – col. 13, Line 6) (Figures 1-2 and 9). Additionally, DALLY discloses a sensor (324) configured to detect a proximity of a user’s hand, and wherein, responsive to a signal generated by the sensor, activating the sterilization system (322) (Fig. 3) (col. 8, lines 41-46 and col. 10, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 7, BALKIN discloses wherein the at least one stack of disposable gloves (154) is arranged in a hanging configuration (note that device is attached to a wall and therefore the gloves are in “a hanging configuration” as claimed) from the at least one glove holder (104; particularly note 108), and wherein each glove (144) includes at least one aperture (150), the at least one glove holder (104) comprising at least one rod (108) extending through the at least one aperture (150) of each glove (144) in the at least one stack (Figures 5-8).
Regarding claim 8, BALKIN discloses wherein each glove (144) further comprises a frangible portion (152) proximate to the at least one aperture (150), the frangible portion (152) configured to tear when the glove (144) is removed from the at least one rod (108) (Figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 9, BALKIN discloses a counter capable of functioning to track a number of gloves dispensed from the at least one stack (col. 13, lines 7-25).
Regarding claim 10, BALKIN discloses multiple nozzles (80, 82, 84) as discussed above wherein any one of the nozzles (80, 82, 84) can be considered fully capable of functioning to direct an auxiliary air stream [of CO2] towards a user’s hands external to the foremost gloves to aid in drying the user’s hands based on the positioning of the nozzles (80, 82, 84) as shown in figure 9.
The method of claims 16-20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by BALKIN in view of DALLY for the reasons as discussed within the rejection of claims 1-10 above. Particularly, note that BALKIN discloses the method step detecting, via at least one sensor (92 of 88), a presence of a user’s hand proximate to the at least one stack of gloves (154) and responsive to detecting the presence, activating the gas source (120) to direct gas through the at least one gas nozzle (80, 82, 84) into the entry portion of a foremost glove (144) in the at least one stack (154), thereby inflating the foremost glove (144) (col. 12, Line 33 – col. 13, Line 6) (Figures 1-2 and 9). Additionally, note the sterilization system of DALLY (which is combined with BALKIN) wherein a sensor (324) detects a proximity of a user’s hand, and wherein, responsive to a signal generated by the sensor, activates the sterilization system (322) (Fig. 3) (col. 8, lines 41-46 and col. 10, lines 56-67). Figures 10-17 of BALKIN disclose the step of mounting the the housing (30, 32, 34) to a wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Note that claims 11-15 have been rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting; however, claims 11-15 have not been rejected with prior art. BALKIN et al. (US 8,651,323 B2) fails to disclose a second glove holder (supporting a second stack of gloves) and a second gas nozzle as claimed wherein the gas source is in fluid communication with both the first gas nozzle and the second gas nozzle, the gas source configured to deliver gas simultaneously through the first gas nozzle into the foremost glove of the first stack and through the second gas nozzle into the foremost glove of the second stack, to thereby inflate said foremost gloves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, as cited on attached PTO-892, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note that KR 2015-0015132 is directed at a glove donning apparatus comprising a sterilizing unit (140).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN E DURHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8642. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NED
/NATHAN E DURHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732