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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “that cover a metacarpal bone.” It is suggested the claim is rephrased to recite “is configured to cover a metacarpal bone” so the functional relationship between the elements is more clearly established. 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 4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 4 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The term “substantially unitary” is interpreted as including additional fabric for purposes of applying prior art.
Claims depending from claims rejected to under this section are similarly rejected to for their dependence on a claim rejected to under this section.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,497,073 to Deutsch.
For claim 1, Deutsch discloses a protective glove system (fig. 1), comprising: a hand component that includes a hand fitted glove (10) having a plurality of padded hand elements (padding rolls 17 on hand receiving portion 10) disposed along a surface of the hand fitted glove (fig. 1), wherein the padded hand elements are configured to separately protect different finger parts of a hand (col. 2, lines 43-60); and
a forearm component (30) coupled to the hand component (col. 3, lines 9-12), wherein the forearm component includes a sleeve configured to wrap around a forearm (body of cuff 30 is considered a sleeve configured to wrap around a forearm) and having a plurality of transverse pads disposed along an outer surface of the sleeve (padding rolls 17 on cuff 30).
For claim 2, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the padded hand elements are independently glued or sewn to an outer surface of the hand fitted glove (col. 2, lines 53-55).
For claim 3, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the transverse pads are independently glued or sewn to an outer surface of the sleeve (col. 2, lines 53-55).
For claim 5, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the padded hand elements are configured to separately protect a distal phalanx, a middle phalanx, and a proximal phalanx (see figs. 1 and 2 wherein the padding means are considered as being configured to separately protect a distal phalanx, a middle phalanx, and a proximal phalanx).
For claim 8, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the padded hand elements further comprise a metacarpal pad attached to a surface of the hand fitted glove that covers a metacarpal bone proximate a wrist (see figs. 1 and 2 wherein the padding means are considered as being configured to protect a metacarpal bone proximate a wrist).
For claim 12, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the hand fitted glove comprises one a leather or a synthetic material (col. 5, lines 10-30).
For claim 17, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of transverse pads are configured to each separately wrap around a portion of a forearm (see figs. 1 and 2 wherein the plurality of transverse pads are configured to each separately wrap around a portion of a forearm).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch.
For claim 4, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, wherein the hand fitted glove and sleeve are substantially formed from a unitary piece of material (col. 3, lines 9-21 wherein the attachment of the additional fabric components is considered substantially formed from a unitary piece of material).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the hand fitted glove and sleeve are formed from a unitary piece of material since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure formed of different parts is merely a matter of design choice requiring only routine skill in the art and absent a showing a unexpected results, which applicant has not demonstrated. (See MPEP 2144 (IV)(B)).
For claim 18, Deutsch discloses a glove system (fig. 1), comprising: a substantially unitary piece of material (col. 3, lines 9-21 wherein the attachment of the additional fabric components is considered substantially formed from a unitary piece of material) having a hand fitted glove (10) and a sleeve (30) configured to wrap around a forearm and extend at least half way to an elbow (see fig. 1 wherein the cuff portion has a length and is considered a being capable of performing the intended use/function of extending at least halfway to an elbow); a plurality of padded hand elements (padding rolls 17 on hand receiving portion 10) disposed along a surface of the hand fitted glove (fig. 1) individually attached to an outer surface of the hand fitted glove (col. 2, lines 53-55), wherein the padded hand elements are configured to separately protect different finger parts of a hand and move independently of each other (see figs. 1 and 2 wherein padding elements 17 are separated and are considered capable of performing the function of separately protecting different finger parts of a hand and move independently of each other) (col. 2, lines 43-60); and a plurality of pads independently attached to an outer surface of the sleeve (padding rolls 17 on cuff 30).
Alternatively, with respect to a substantially unitary piece of material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the hand fitted glove and sleeve are formed from a unitary piece of material since the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure formed of different parts is merely a matter of design choice requiring only routine skill in the art and absent a showing a unexpected results, which applicant has not demonstrated.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2011/0067165 A1 to Fream.
For claim 6, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 5, wherein padded hand elements are further configured to cover a top side of a thumb (col. 3, lines 44-53 and fig. 1).
Deutsch does not specifically disclose wherein padded hand elements are configured to cover at least one edge side of the thumb.
However, attention is directed to Fream teaching an analogous protective glove (abstract of Fream). Specifically, Fream teaches, in addition to padded elements configured for protecting the top side of a thumb, additional padded element are configured for protecting a least one side edge of the thumb (para 0074 and fig. 18 of Fream). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Deutsch for be modified to comprise an additional padded elements along the side part of the thumb region of the glove for purposes of providing protection to a least one side of the thumb, as taught by Fream (para 0074 and fig. 18 of Fream).
For claim 13, Deutsch teaches the protective glove system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the padded hand elements and transverse pads each include at least one of polyethene, polyurethane, ethylene vinyl acetate or styrene butadiene rubber.
However, attention is again directed to Fream teaching the covering material of each pad can be polyurethane (para 0073) for providing durable and resilient material to the padding elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the padded hand elements and transverse pads each include polyurethane, as taught by Fream (para 0073 of Fream), for purposes of providing durable and resilient material to the padding elements.
For claim 14, Deutsch teaches the protective glove system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the padded hand elements and transverse pads each include at least one of rubber, foam, plastic, metal, or carbon fiber.
However, attention is again directed to Fream teaching the covering material of each pad can be polyurethane (para 0073) for providing durable and resilient material to the padding elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the padded hand elements and transverse pads each include polyurethane, a plastic, as taught by Fream (para 0073 of Fream), for purposes of providing durable and resilient material to the padding elements.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 9,839,831 B2 to Brown.
For claim 7, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 5, wherein padded hand elements are further configured to cover a top side of a pinky (col. 3, lines 44-53 and fig. 1).
Deutsch does not specifically disclose wherein padded hand elements are configured to cover an edge side of a pinky
However, attention is directed to Brown teaching an analogous protective glove (abstract of Brown). Specifically, Brown teaches, in addition to padded elements configured for protecting the top side of a pinky, additional padded element are configured for protecting a least one side edge of the pinky (col. 4, lines 32-37 of Brown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Deutsch for be modified to comprise an additional padded elements along the side part of the pinky region of the glove for purposes of providing protection to a least one side of the pinky, as taught by Brown (col. 4, lines 32-37 of Brown).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,561,128 B2 to Joseph.
For claim 9, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the sleeve includes a separatable edge configured to be opened and closed with an upper flap and a lower flap.
However, Deutsch does teach the wrist attachment means are in the form of removable lacings (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 4).
Attention is also directed to Joseph teaching different means and closures for attaching hand worn articles to the wrist of the used (col. 14, lines 61-64). Specifically, Joseph teaches the cuff of the hand worn article can be secured to the wrist of the wearer by a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the length of the forearm or be a lacing system (col. 14, lines 61-64; and col. 15, lines 18-34 of Joseph).
Therefore, Deutsch’s glove securing means and Joseph’s wrist securing means have the same function and are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Deutsch would be further modified wherein the removable lacings are substituted for a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the length of the opening of the cuff of Deutsch’s glove since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of securing the different perimeter portions of the cuff region of the glove to the wrist of the user without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to accomplish (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As a result, the modified Deutsch would be considered as teaching wherein the sleeve includes a separatable edge configured to be opened and closed with an upper flap and a lower flap.
For claim 10, the modified Deutsch teaches the protective glove system of claim 9, further comprising a wrist strap coupled to the lower flap, wherein the wrist strap includes a fastener for securing the wrist strap to a top portion of the glove system (see discussion for claim 9 above wherein the modified Deutsch comprises a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the length of the opening of the cuff).
For claim 11, the modified Deutsch teaches the protective glove system of claim 9, wherein the upper flap and lower flap include a hook and loop fastener (see discussion for claim 9 above wherein the modified Deutsch comprises a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the opening of the cuff).
For claim 19, the modified Deutsch teaches the glove system of claim 18, but does not specifically disclose wherein the sleeve includes a separatable edge configured to be opened and closed with an upper flap and a lower flap.
However, Deutsch does teach the wrist attachment means are in the form of removable lacings (col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 4).
Attention is also directed to Joseph teaching different means and closures for attaching hand worn articles to the wrist of the used (col. 14, lines 61-64). Specifically, Joseph teaches the cuff of the hand worn article can be secured to the wrist of the wearer by a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the length of the forearm or be a lacing system (col. 14, lines 61-64; and col. 15, lines 18-34 of Joseph). Therefore, Deutsch’s glove securing means and Joseph’s wrist securing means have the same function and are known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Deutsch would be further modified wherein the removable lacings are substituted for a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the length of the opening of the cuff of Deutsch’s glove since the modification would amount to a simple substitution of known components for a predictable result. In this case, the substitution would yield the predictable result of securing the different perimeter portions of the cuff region of the glove to the wrist of the user without requiring more than ordinary skill in the art to accomplish (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). As a result, the modified Deutsch would be considered as teaching wherein the sleeve includes a separatable edge configured to be opened and closed with an upper flap and a lower flap.
For claim 20, the modified Deutsch teaches the glove system of claim 19, further comprising a wrist strap coupled to the lower flap, wherein the wrist strap includes a fastener for securing the wrist strap to a top portion of the glove system (see discussion for claim 19 above wherein the modified Deutsch comprises a plurality of hook and loop type straps along the opening of the cuff).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0026280 A1 to Clark.
For claim 15, Deutsch teaches the protective glove system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the padded hand elements and transverse pads each have a thickness of between 0.5 and 1.5 inches.
However, attention is directed to Clark teaching an analogous glove (abstract of Clark). Specifically, Clark teaches the pads of the glove comprise a thickness of about 25 mm (paras 0060-0061 of Clark) for providing adequate protection against impacts (para 0068 of Clark). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein the padded hand elements and transverse pads each have a thickness of between 0.5 and 1.5 inches (about 1 inch) for providing adequate protection against impacts as taught by Clark (paras 0060-0061 and 0068 of Clark).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0229477 A1 to McGough.
For claim 16, Deutsch discloses the protective glove system of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a palm region of the hand fitted glove is comprised of a material less than 1/10 inch in thickness.
However, attention is directed to McGough teaching an analogous glove (abstract). Specifically, McGough teachings the glove is a tight-fitting glove having a thickness typically in the range 0.008 to 0.020 inches (para 0030) for purposes of providing improved tactile feedback and grip (para 0024-0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date wherein Deutsch would be modified wherein a palm region of the hand fitted glove is comprised of a material thickness in the range 0.008 to 0.020 inches for purposes of providing improved tactile feedback and grip, as taught by McGough (paras 0024-0025 and 0030 of McGough).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:30pm EST.
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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732