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 .
A power of attorney is of record for this application, received 12/3/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 5/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 lacks antecedent basis for “the baseball sliding apparatus” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This limitation is interpreted as referencing the baseball sliding mitt. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 12 recites “the one or more ridges extend lengthwise to collectively form a chevron shape, the chevron shape comprising first and second ridge portions extending at an angle relative to one another…”. It’s not clear how one ridge collectively forms a chevron shape. It appears the limitation should be revised to delete “one or more” as the claim limitations require at least two ridges. A suggested revision: “the one or more ridges comprise first and second ridge portions extending lengthwise to collectively form a chevron shape comprising the first and second ridge portions extending at an angle relative to one another to converge at an intersection area facing forward towards the fingertip-receiving area of the sliding mitt body”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20220064800A) in view of Sood (U.S. D779130). Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed. For claim 1, Kim teaches a reinforced baseball sliding mitt, comprising: a sliding mitt body 100 having a finger-receiving area and a fingertip-receiving area (see annotated drawing); and a protective guard (combined 110,120) attached to the sliding mitt body to extend below the finger-receiving area and the fingertip-receiving area and in front of the fingertip-receiving area. However, Kim doesn’t teach the protective guard having a bottom surface with a tread facing away from the sliding mitt body as in claim 1. Sood teaches it’s known in the art of hand protectors to provide a tread to a glove, the tread providing improved tactility and grip (disclosed as “gripper tread”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim to provide the tread as taught by Sood to improve Kim’s mitt in the same manner, by providing a tread to provide grip/frictional properties during sliding or other baseball-related activities.
For claim 3, the modified Kim teaches the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the protective guard is stitched to the sliding mitt body (“Here, the finger surface protector 110, the back of the hand protector 111, the finger base protector 120, and the palm protector 121 may be cut and sewn into one body..”).
For claim 4, the modified Kim teaches the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the protective guard is permanently attached to the sliding mitt body (stitched attachment is considered as permanent).
For claim 8, Kim doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 6, wherein the front wall has an exterior surface with ridges. Sood teaches the glove having a front wall with an exterior surface with ridges. Figures 3, 4, and 6 show the glove’s front wall with an exterior surface with ridges disclosed as “gripper tread”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s mitt to provide the front wall with an exterior surface with ridges as taught by Sood, to provide grip and tactile function at outer portions of the mitt.
For claim 9, Kim doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the tread is shaped as a unidirectional tread. However, Sood teaches the glove including a tread shaped as a unidirectional tread as in Figures 1-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s mitt to include the tread shaped as a unidirectional tread, as Sood teaches such tread is useful for gripping purposes.
For claim 15, the modified Kim teaches the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the tread is constructed and arranged to substantially prevent reduction of momentum of a wearer of the baseball sliding apparatus when the wearer slides in a sliding direction into a baseball base leading with the baseball sliding apparatus. Note that the claim doesn’t provide further structural details of the tread in the limitation “further constructed and arranged”, and Kim’s mitt including the tread as modified and structurally equivalent to the claimed mitt is considered as capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
For claim 16, the modified Kim teaches the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 15, wherein the tread is further constructed and arranged to provide resistance on the baseball base when situated by the wearer into an opposite direction to the sliding direction to prevent over sliding past the baseball base. Note that the claim doesn’t provide further structural details of the tread in the limitation “further constructed and arranged”, and Kim’s mitt including the tread as modified and structurally equivalent to the claimed mitt is considered as capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘800 in view of Sood ‘130 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilbert, Jr. (U.S. 2006/0004412). Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kim doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the protective guard is adhered to the sliding mitt body. Gilbert teaches that it’s known in the mitten art to attach a guard structure 2 to a mitt by sewing or gluing as in par.19. Various attachment means such as gluing/adhesion and sewing are considered obvious equivalents in the art since each mechanism achieves the same end function and allows for retention of the guard to the mitt. Applicant's specification does not provide criticality or unexpected results achieved by employing one type of attachment means over another. Under KSR rationale, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to adhere the guard to the mitt as a secure retention means which would avoid stitching or sewing lines on the mitt.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘800 in view of Sood ‘130 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyslop (CA 3140726). Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kim doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the protective guard is molded and has a one-piece construction as set forth in claim 5. Kim doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the protective guard has a rounded front wall extending in front of and to the sides of the fingertip-receiving area of the sliding mitt body as set forth in claim 6. Hyslop teaches a mitt with a protective guard 150 that is molded and has a one-piece construction, as pg.12, lines 9-10 and disclose the method of making the mitt 100 including molding the cap/guard 150 and stitching the guard to the mitt as in lines 12-15. For claim 6, Hyslop’s guard 150 has a rounded front wall extending in front of and to the sides of the fingertip receiving area of the mitt body as in Figures 2 and 8. For claim 7, Kim teaches the front wall including an inwardly extending lip as Figure 3 shows layers 110,120 of the front wall extending inwardly at respective bottoms of the wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s protective guard such that it is molded and has a one-piece construction as an alternative guard structure expected to perform in the same manner. It is also considered obvious to modify Kim’s protective guard to have a rounded front wall extending in front of and to the sides of the fingertip-receiving area of the sliding mitt body, as taught by Hyslop, such that the front wall conforms to the rounded shape of the mitt and prevent any sharp edges.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘800 in view of Sood ‘130 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alden (U.S. 2009/0094722). Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the tread comprises one or more ridges as in claim 10 and the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 1, wherein the protective guard is comprised of a thermoplastic urethane, a thermoplastic elastomer, polyurethane, polyethylene, or a combination comprising two or more thereof as in claim 17. Alden teaches a mitt with gripping material formed from polyurethane as in par.26. Alden further teaches the gripping material may contain one or more three-dimensional gripping portions which create greater traction for increased tactile control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s protective guard to form from polyurethane as Alden teaches an analagous mitt with gripping material formed from polyurethane and the proposed modification is expected to result in improved grip properties for the mitt.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘800 in view of Sood ‘130 and Alden ‘722 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Holdaway (GB 2515610 A). Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kim doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 10, wherein the one or more ridges comprise a plurality of adjacent ridges situated in a side-by-side relationship all facing in the same direction as in claim 11 and the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 10, wherein the one or more ridges extend lengthwise to collectively form a chevron shape, the chevron shape comprising first and second ridge portions extending at an angle relative to one another to converge at an intersection area facing forward towards the fingertip-receiving area of the sliding mitt body as in claim 12. Holdaway teaches a glove 1 with a plurality of adjacent ridges 18, 19, 20 situated in a side-by-side relationship all facing in the same direction and the one or more ridges 20 extend lengthwise to collectively form a chevron shape comprising first and second ridge portions extending at an angle relative to one another to converge at an intersection area facing forward towards the fingertip-receiving area of the glove body (shown in Fig.1). Holdaway teaches the ridges provide grip properties to the glove. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s mitt to include the one or more ridges comprise a plurality of adjacent ridges situated in a side-by-side relationship all facing in the same direction and the one or more ridges extend lengthwise to collectively form a chevron shape, the chevron shape comprising first and second ridge portions extending at an angle relative to one another to converge at an intersection area facing forward towards the fingertip-receiving area of the sliding mitt body as Holdaway teaches these ridge patterns and arrangements are known in the art and are expected to provide the predicted result of improved grip and frictional properties to the mitt.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘800 in view of Sood ‘130 and Alden ‘722 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (U.S. 9,788,585). Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 10, wherein the one or more ridges have a height or depth in a range of 0.25 mm to 20 mm. as in claim 13 and doesn’t teach the reinforced baseball sliding mitt of claim 10, wherein the one or more ridges have a height or depth in a range of 3 mm to 5 mm. as in claim 14. Thompson teaches a glove 100 including one or more ridges 101 having a height or depth of 0-1 mm (par.20) which overlaps the claimed range. For claim 14, Thompson’s paragraph 21 discloses that the height of the ridges 101 may be between 2-8 mm (encompasses the claimed range of 3-5 mm) based on intended application of the glove. The one or more ridges provide grip, abrasion and durability properties to the glove as in par.21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s one or more ridges to have a height or depth in a range of .25 mm to 20 mm or between 3-5 mm as taught by Thompson, to provide desired grip, abrasion and durability properties to the sliding mitt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights