The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Final Action
General Information
The merits of this case have been carefully reexamined in light of applicant's response received January 27, 2026. It is the examiner's position that the rejection of record under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b), has not been overcome by applicant's amendments and there are grounds for rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) in the applicant’s amendments, therefore this action is made FINAL.
Claim FINAL Rejection – 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b)
The claim is AGAIN AND FINALLY rejected under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabled due to the following:
I. Unclear Scope
The following scope inconsistencies prevent a clear understanding of the design:
A. The title of the claimed design is “boxing glove with grip bar,” yet the figures show varying portions of the palm side of a boxing glove and none of the figures show an entire boxing glove.
B. The drawings disclose varying portions of the design. Because of this, the exact boundaries of the design are unclear. For example, Fig. 1.1 shows the lower palm-side area of the glove, including a portion of a feature in the center of the palm-side area, and the area where the thumb portion of the glove connects to the body of the glove. In contrast, Fig. 1.2 shows less of the glove. Fig. 1.2 shows the upper palm-side area of the glove and not the lower palm-side area. Also, Fig. 1.2 shows a portion of the thumb of the glove, but not the area where the thumb portion of the glove connects to the body of the glove. It is indefinite if all, some, or none of these features are meant to form part of the claim as these portions are shown in some figures and not in others. See circled areas below indicating examples of portions of the article that create a scope inconsistency.
PNG
media_image1.png
833
1330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It should be obvious, at a glance, that all the drawings show the exact same portions of the article forming a part of the claimed design. Correction is suggested to show all portions of the claim and boundaries of the claim clearly and consistently throughout all of the views.
Because of the scope inconsistencies in the drawings, the claimed design is subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reproduce the design without resorting to conjecture, and it is therefore indefinite. This renders the claim non-enabled. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the design be shown clearly and consistently among the views. However, care must be taken to not introduce new matter. If applicant chooses to exclude portions of the design from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 USC § 112(a). It must be apparent that the applicant was in possession of the amended design at the time of the original filing.
II. Inconsistencies in showing of claimed portions
In Fig. 1.1 there are shading lines that indicate a gathered seam where the palm-side surface of the thumb meets the non-palm-side surface of the thumb. In Fig. 1.2 there are no shading lines at the corresponding seam, indicating a smooth surface on both sides of that seam. See circled areas and arrows below.
PNG
media_image2.png
833
1302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 USC § 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Claim FINAL Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112 (a), as failing to comply with the description requirement thereof since the drawing amendment introduces new matter not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that applicant was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F .3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F .2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
There is no support in the original disclosure for at least the following (see annotated drawings below where the original disclosure is on the left and the amended disclosure is on the right):
A. The arch-shaped feature near the bottom edge is longer and without solid line boundaries on the lower edges in the amended drawings.
PNG
media_image3.png
776
1281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
B. The trapezoidal feature on the palm area of the glove is flush with the surface of the glove in the amended drawings. See arrows which point to lines showing the trapezoidal feature as raised from the surface of the glove in the original disclosure and pointing to the absence of those lines in the amended disclosure.
PNG
media_image4.png
582
1584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
C. There is reference in the specification to “area 1.2” in the description of figure 1.2. In the originally filed specification, there is no reference to an “area 1.2,” nor is there any indication of the existence of an “area 1.2.” See description below where the words in bold text indicate new matter.
1.2: Partial view of the boxing glove of 1.1, taken from area 1.2.
D. The description of broken lines in the specification states that the long-dash broken lines illustrate portions of the boxing glove. In the originally filed specification, there is no reference to any broken lines that illustrate portions of the glove. Additionally, the “long-dash broken lines” are described as illustrating “boundary lines and portions of the boxing glove” which further confuses the scope of the claim by claiming portions of the boxing glove that were not shown in the original disclosure, as there were no “long-dash broken lines” in the original disclosure. See description below where the words in bold text indicate new matter.
The long-dash broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate boundary lines and portions of the boxing glove that form no part of the claimed design.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim.
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).
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 USC § 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The claimed design is rejected under 35 USC § 112, (a) and (b), and 35 USC § 112 (a), as set forth above.
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 extension fee 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 Examiner Maria Edwards whose telephone number is (408) 918-7686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m., but is out of the office on alternating Fridays. 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, George Bugg, can be reached on (571) 272-2998. The fax number for the organization to which 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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.
/MARIA J. EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2924