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
The amendments filed with the written response received on June 09, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-2 and 4-5 have been amended; claim 10 is canceled; and claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-9 and 11-13
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed March 20, 2026 are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the abstract;
Objections to the claims.
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 5 and 12 (and claim 6 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.
Claim 5 is indefinite as each recites, “wherein the outer surface of the glove formed by the 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 12 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the body comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer forms the first side of the body and the second layer forms the second side of the body.” As claim 1 recites, “the body being formed from a single layer of an elastomeric material”, it is unclear how the body has first and second layers as claim 12 is in direct opposition of claim 1. Therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
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 11-13 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 and a second side opposite the first side (see annotated Fig. 5); the body being formed from a single layer of elastomeric material (elastomeric, see para. 0026, and as the body is formed by dipping a hand former into three tanks (see para. 0009), the resulting final product is a single layer of the combination of 28/30/32), 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 where the single layer of the final product can include most of these compositions); wherein the first side comprises a uniform surface (see para. 0056-0058 where the hand former 34 can be “smooth” and thus a uniform surface), and the second side comprises a surface (outer surface, see annotated Fig. 5) 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 outer most surface 44).
Regarding claim 2, Bagwell discloses wherein the surface of the second side comprises a plurality of the embossed shape in a repeating pattern (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 uniform surface of the first side forms an inside surface of the glove and the surface of the second side forms an outside surface of the glove (as understood from claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Bagwell discloses wherein the outer surface of the glove formed by 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 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 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) (Examiner notes this claim limitation is as best as can be understood as it is in direct opposition to claim 1).
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 32 and 32 is the first dip, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 (Bagwell)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Examiner further notes Applicant’s glove may have a single layer or multiple layers (see final para. on p. 12 of the specification) and Applicant has not provided any criticality for a single layer vs. multiple layers.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights