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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (an elastomeric article), Species A (Figs. 1-2) in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-13.
Specification-Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because is recites, “An elastomeric article and a process for forming an elastomeric article are provided” which is a phrase which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 should recite, “wherein the glove has a palm region thickness ranging from about 0.01 millimeters to [[about]] 6 millimeters.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 10 (and claims 6-7 and 11 at least for depending from a rejected claim) is 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.
Claims 2 and 5 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the surface of the second side comprises a repeating pattern of the embossed shape.” It is unclear if embossed shape is a repeating pattern of if the embossed shape comprises a plurality of embossed shapes that collectively comprise a repeating patterns. For purposes of examination, based on Fig. 1, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the embossed shape comprises a plurality of embossed shapes that collectively comprise a repeating patterns.
Claim 4 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the first side forms an inside surface of the glove and the second side forms an outside surface of the glove.” As claim 1 recites, “and the second side comprises a surface”, it is unclear if “an outside surface of the glove” is in addition to/different than the surface of the second side.
Claim 5 is further indefinite as it recites, “wherein the surface of the second side comprises a repeating pattern of the embossed shape.” It is unclear if “the surface” is referring to the “surface” recited in claim 1 or the “outside surface” recited in claim 4.
The term “smooth” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “smooth” to mean free from protrusions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagwell (US 2022/0256953).
Regarding claim 1, Bagwell discloses an elastomeric article (glove 10) comprising: a body (14) having a first side (inside facing hand of user, i.e. side with layer 28) and a second side (outside facing outward of the hand, i.e. layer 32), opposite the first side (as understood from Fig. 7); the body being formed from an elastomeric material, the elastomeric material comprising polyurethane, nitrile rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, isobutylene-isoprene rubber, polychloroprene, polyisoprene, natural rubber, or a combination thereof (see paras. 0030-0031 and 0033); wherein the first side comprises a uniform surface (see para. 0056-0058 where the hand former 34 on which layer 28 is formed can be “smooth” and thus a uniform surface), and the second side comprises a surface (44) having an embossed shape (patterned area 39 having shapes 42, see paras. 0059-0060) extending therefrom in a direction opposite the first side of the body (as disclosed in para. 0060, shapes 42 are raised relative to the surface 44 of the outer layer).
Regarding claim 2, Bagwell discloses wherein the surface of the second side comprises a repeating pattern of the embossed shape (as disclosed in para. 0060 where the shapes are spaced apart substantially equidistant, i.e. a repeating pattern).
Regarding claim 3, Bagwell discloses wherein the body forms a glove (as the article 10 is a glove, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Bagwell discloses wherein the first side forms an inside surface of the glove and the second side forms an outside surface of the glove (as understood from claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Bagwell discloses wherein the surface of the second side comprises a repeating pattern of the embossed shape (as disclosed in para. 0060 where the shapes are spaced apart substantially equidistant, i.e. a repeating pattern).
Regarding claim 6, Bagwell discloses wherein the repeating pattern of the embossed shape extends on both a palm side of the outside surface of the glove and a dorsal side of the outside surface of the glove (as disclosed in para. 0059 where the patterned area on the mold can be “over the whole” and thus when the glove is fabricated then the patterned area can be on each side of the glove).
Regarding claim 7, Bagwell discloses wherein the glove has a palm region thickness (thickness of 20, Tp) ranging from about 0.01 millimeters to about 6 millimeters (as seen in para. 0040).
Regarding claim 10, Bagwell discloses wherein the uniform surface of the first side is smooth (see para. 0056-0058 where the hand former 34 on which layer 28 is formed can be “smooth”).
Regarding claim 11, Bagwell discloses wherein the uniform surface is free from any embossed or debossed shapes (as the disclosed in para. 0060 where the shapes 42 can be raised on the outer surface 44 of outer layer 32 (second side) and therefore the uniform surface of the first side is free from embossed or debossed shapes).
Regarding claim 12, Bagwell discloses wherein the body comprises a first layer (28) and a second layer (32), wherein the first layer forms the first side of the body and the second layer forms the second side of the body (see para. 0026).
Regarding claim 13, Bagwell discloses wherein the body has a first thickness extending from the first side to the second side (as seen in Figs. 7-9), wherein the body has a second thickness extending from the first side to the embossed shape of the second side, the second thickness being greater than the first thickness (not shown but understood from paras. 0059-0060 and 0068-0070, as the embossed shape extends from the outer surface of the outer layer 32 and the outer layer is the layer that is dipped first, then the distance from the first side to the second side where there is an embossed shape is greater than a thickness adjacent the embossed shape).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagwell, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McNamara (US 2006/0006573).
Regarding claims 8-9, Bagwell discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above and where the embossed shape can be “any suitable geometric shapes, non-geometric shapes, or combinations thereof (see para. 0060), but does not expressly disclose wherein the embossed shape comprises at least one alphabetical letter [claim 8], and wherein the at least one alphabetical letter comprises a plurality of letters forming a word or an acronym [claim 9].
McNamara teaches gloves with slip resistant surfaces wherein the shape comprises at least one alphabetical letter, and wherein the at least one alphabetical letter comprises a plurality of letters forming a word or an acronym (see Fig. 3 and para. 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the embossed shape of Bagwell to be a word as taught by McNamara “for brand recognition or any other aesthetic or design function” (see para. 0025 of McNamara) and since change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Perry (US 2016/0088905) shows surfaces with gripping features with letters/words, and Smid (US 20200253306) shows a glove with an embossed shape that can be any pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732