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 .
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, 7-8, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 805,829. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the allowed claims are narrower in scope and cover the subject matter of the instant application. Claims 1-3 is met by claim 1, claims 7-8 are met by claim 1, claim 16 is met by claim 1, claim 17 is met by claim 1.
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) 1-4, 7, 8, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by York (US 2019/0216144). The device of York discloses,
A glove, comprising: a base body (26) , in a form of a band (Merriam Webster defined band as “something that confines or constricts while allowing a degree of movement” and therefore meets the claim limitation as currently presented), with two opposing longitudinal edges (20, 18), a palm section (28) configured for covering a palm of a hand, a back section (26) configured for covering a back of the hand, and a thumb hole (Figure 1- 2 and para 0038) between the palm section and the back section, the two longitudinal edges of the base body being a finger-side edge (20) which faces a user's fingers and a wrist-side edge (18) which faces the user's wrist when the glove is being worn, each of the palm section and the back section having a portion of the finger-side edge and a portion of the wrist-side edge (Figures 1 and 2) ; a tongue (38) forming a protrusion of the finger-side edge protruding upward beyond at least one of the finger-side edge of the palm section or an imaginary extension of the finger-side edge of the palm section (Figure 1); a trigger device (56) provided on the tongue, wherein the trigger device is positioned on the tongue such that, when the glove is being worn, the trigger device is configured to rest against a radial side of a metacarpophalangeal joint of an index finger of a user's hand (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the finger-side edge (20) of the base body is continuous. The Finger side edge continues from a first side of the tongue to a second side of the tongue, continuously and therefore meets the claim as currently presented.
With respect to claim 3, wherein the finger-side edge(20) is without a finger hole for a single finger, without a finger hole for two fingers and without a finger hole for three fingers. The edge is free of any apertures, Figure 1)
With respect to claim 4, wherein the tongue forms a single sheet of material when the glove is stretched out on a surface. The tongue (38) is a single layer of material. “when the gloved is stretched out on a surface” is functional language. The prior art would be capable of performing the claimed function, if the glove was separated at the side seam and laid flat on a surface the tongue would form a single sheet of material as required by the claim. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 7, wherein the thumb hole is bordered by a stop at its finger-side end (top edge), wherein the thumb hole has a longitudinal axis (at least a portion of the thumb hole extends along a longitudinal axis) and the trigger device (560 is spaced apart from the stop by a first distance in a direction of the longitudinal axis towards the finger side of the glove (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the thumb hole is bordered by a stop at its finger-side end (upper edge) ,wherein the thumb hole has a transverse axis (at least a portion of the thumb hole is along a transvers axis) and the trigger device (56) is spaced apart from the stop by a second distance in a direction of the transverse axis towards the back section. (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 13, wherein the glove has a holder (55) for an electronics module, wherein the holder has at least one electrical contact element, which is electrically connected to the trigger device (para 0041).
With respect to claim 14, wherein the finger-side edge of the palm section or the imaginary extension of the finger-side edge of the palm section at least one intersects of a trigger surface when the glove is stretched out and runs between a center of the trigger surface and a stop. The position of the elements with respect to the device, “when the glove is stretched out” is a product by process recitation. The prior art is capable of forming in the manner claimed, since the structure of the prior art meets the structure recited and would be expected to perform in the same manner. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 15, wherein the finger-side edge of the palm section, when the glove is being worn, is configured to run on a wrist side of at least the metacarpophalangeal joint of the index finger (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 16, A glove, comprising: a base body (26) , in a form of a band (Merriam Webster defined band as “something that confines or constricts while allowing a degree of movement” and therefore meets the claim limitation as currently presented), with two opposing longitudinal edges (20, 18), a palm section (28) configured for covering a palm of a hand, a back section (26) configured for covering a back of the hand, and a thumb hole (Figure 1- 2 and para 0038) between the palm section and the back section, the two longitudinal edges of the base body being a finger-side edge (20) which faces a user's fingers and a wrist-side edge (18) which faces the user's wrist when the glove is being worn, each of the palm section and the back section having a portion of the finger-side edge and a portion of the wrist-side edge (Figures 1 and 2) ;
a tongue (38) forming a protrusion of the finger-side edge protruding upward;
a trigger device (56) provided on the tongue, wherein the trigger device is positioned on the tongue such that, when the glove is being worn, the trigger device is configured to rest against a radial side of a metacarpophalangeal joint of an index finger of a user's hand (Figure 1)
wherein the thumb hole is bordered by a stop ( rim or the thumb hole) at its finger-side end, wherein the thumb hole has a transverse axis (at least a portion of the hole is a long a transverse axis) and the trigger device (56) is spaced apart from the stop by a second distance in a direction of the transverse axis towards the back section (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 17, wherein the tongue (38) is part of the base body.
18. The glove according to claim 1, wherein the tongue (38) is located above the thumb hole (Figure 1).
With respect to claim 18, wherein the tongue (38) is located in position (vertically) above the thumb hole.
With respect to claim 19, wherein the tongue has a distal edge (upper end) , a first side edge (left side) extending from the palm section, and a second side edge separate from the first side edge (right side) and extending from the back section (Figures 1-2).
With respect to claim 20, wherein the glove comprises at opposed ends (46, 42) of the base body (Figure 2) a first securing element (50) and a second securing element (48)detachably securable to one another.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York in view of Paull et al. (US 5,365,213).
The device of York substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking the no finger holes.
The device of Paull et al. teaches,
With respect to claim 6, wherein the entire glove has no finger holes (Figure 1, 3) except for at thumb hole (at 30) when the glove is stretched out on a surface (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the glove as taught by Paull et al. with no finger holes except a thumb hole in order to provide better dexterity, tactility and availability of all fingers and to simplify manufacture by using less material.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York. The device of York substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking the measurement recited by applicant.
With respect to claim 9, the second distant is smaller than 40 mm. The device of York teaches a minimal distance but is silent to the value. However, it has been held that discovering the optimum value as a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and such modification would involve a mere change in the size of a distance between components. In the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find the optimal value of distance between the thumb hole and the trigger devices as it would involve routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10, wherein the trigger device has an actuation element (leads, figure 5) and a trigger surface (top surface of the button), through which the actuation element can be actuated, but is circular and therefore lacking a principal direction. It would have been a mere design choice to change the shape of the acuation device to have a principal direction, applicant is pointed to In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). This court decision held that changing the shape of an object that has no structural significant would be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. Therefore, changing the shape to an oblong or rectangular shape, wherein the trigger surface has a principal direction (Figure 1) would involve only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, wherein the principal direction is configured to run substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis or at an angle of less than 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis. As discussed above changing the shape to have a principal direction and one which runs parallel to a longitudinal axis would only involve routine skill in the art, or alternatively, the position the shape such that it is at the claimed angle, it is noted that it has been held that discovering the optimum value (angle) as a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and such modification would involve a mere change in the angle of the component. In the instant case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find the optimal value of the angle of the actuation would involve routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over York in view of Waters (US 2011/0122601). The device of Waters substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking at least one of the trigger device, a protective wall, a pressure plate and actuation element is covered by a material textile layer.
The device of Waters teaches,
With respect to claim 12, the trigger device having a protective wall, a pressure plate (62, 42) and actuation element covered by a textile material layer (104, para 0005).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the elements and cover taught by Waters in order to provide protection against accidental activation (para 0034) and also to provide a protective barrier (para 0061).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights