Patent Application 18719817 - BOXING GLOVE

Title: BOXING GLOVE

Application Information

Invention Title: BOXING GLOVE
Application Number: 18719817
Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2024-06-13T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2024-06-13T00:00:00.000Z
Examiner Employee Number: 94177
Art Unit: 3732
Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0051883🔗

Office Action Text

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 .
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 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.

DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on June 13, 2024, in which claims 1-18
were presented for examination, of which claim 2-17 was amended, are being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement et al. “Clement” (US PG Pub. 2016/0051883) in view of House (US Patent 9,480,902).
Regarding claim 1, Clement discloses a boxing glove (as shown in Figs. 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5) comprising:
- a hand portion (combination of areas 30, 32, and 40 in Fig. 1B) for receiving a wearer's hand (“for receiving…hand” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function);
- a cuff portion (50) for receiving the wearer's wrist and a part of the wearer's forearm (“for receiving…forearm” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function);
- a wrist strap (54) attached to and extending from the cuff portion (50, as shown in Fig. 1B), the wrist strap (54) configured to extend around the cuff portion (as shown in Fig. 2B) and including a first securing element (Par. 0061, lines: 16-21, see Fig. 2B);
- a cuff strap (56) attached to and extending from the cuff portion (50, as shown in Fig. 1B), the cuff strap (56) including a second securing element (Par. 0061, lines: 16-21 and Par. 0064, lines: 21-23, see Fig. 2B), the first securing element being configured to engage with the second securing element (Par. 0062 and Par. 0064, lines: 21-23); and
- a third securing element (58) disposed on a part of the cuff portion (as shown in Fig. 2B); and
wherein, in use, the first securing element is engaged with a part of the second securing element (Par. 0064, lines: 21-23), the cuff strap (56) is wrapped around the cuff portion (as shown in Fig. 2B and 4B), wherein the second securing element is placed above the third securing element (Par. 0064, lines: 13-20, Figs. 3B, 4B, and 5).
Clement does not explicitly disclose the second securing element being configured to engage with the third securing element.
However, House teaches yet another glove in the same field of endeavor of protecting a user’s hand when striking, wherein House teaches a second securing element (26, Fig. 9) being configured to engage with the third securing element (34, Col. 4, lines: 19-23, “configured to…element” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function.), and a part of the second securing element is engaged with the third securing element (Col. 4, lines: 19-23, as shown in the process of Fig. 11-13 where the strap 20 wraps around and over element 34 and element 26 is positioned directly above element 34), and wherein engaging the second securing element with the third securing element simultaneously tightens the wrist strap (52) and the cuff strap (20) around the cuff portion (“simultaneously tightens…portion” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, as shown in the process of Fig. 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the size of the second and third securing element as disclosed by Clement, to have them engage with one another as taught by House, in order to enhance securement of the glove to the users hand when the glove is worn.

Regarding claim 2, Clement in view of House disclose a comprising a guide element (57, Fig. 1B of Clement), and wherein the wrist strap (54) is looped around the guide element (57, as shown in Figs. 1B, 10, 16 and 19) when the cuff strap (56) is wrapped around the cuff portion (50, as shown in Fig. 1B and 4B).

Regarding claim 3, Clement in view of House disclose the guide element (57 of Clement) is a buckle loop (as shown in Fig. 1B) through which the wrist strap (54) extends when the first securing element is engaged with the second securing element (Par. 0062 and Par. 0064, lines: 21-23, Fig. 1B, 3B and 4B).

Regarding claim 4, Clement in view of House disclose the guide element (57 of Clement) is secured to an end of the wrist strap (examiner notes an end of wrist strap 54 is located between where element 57 is, in Fig. 1B, and 54A in Fig. 5).

Regarding claim 5, Clement in view of House disclose the guide element (57 of Clement) is secured to the cuff portion (50, as shown in Fig. 1B).

Regarding claim 6, Clement in view of House disclose in which a length of the cuff portion is defined between the hand portion and an end edge of the cuff portion (see annotated Fig. 1B below of Clement), and a width of the wrist strap in a direction parallel to the length of the cuff portion is substantially less than the length of the cuff portion (examiner notes as shown in annotated Fig. 1B below).

PNG
media_image1.png
816
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale

Fig. 1B-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 7, Clement in view of House disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose the width of the wrist strap is less than half the length of the cuff portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width of the wrist strap less than half the length of the cuff portion, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted the applicant did not disclose criticality to the claimed limitation.

Regarding claim 8, Clement in view of House disclose the wrist strap (54 of Clement) is adjacent the hand portion (combination of areas 30, 32, and 40, examiner notes as shown in Fig. 1B).

Regarding claim 9, Clement in view of House disclose a width of the cuff strap (see annotated Fig. 1B above of Clement) in a direction parallel to the length of the cuff portion (see annotated Fig. 1B above). is equal to the length of the cuff portion.
They do not explicitly disclose the width of the cuff strap is equal to the length of the cuff portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width of the cuff strap is equal to the length of the cuff portion, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, in order to achieve an optimal configuration. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted the applicant did not disclose criticality to the claimed limitation.

Regarding claim 10, Clement in view of House disclose the wrist strap (54 of Clement) forms a complete loop around the cuff portion (50) when the second securing element is engaged with the third securing element (examiner notes due to combination presented above in claim 1 the second and third securing element are modified to engage with one another, and the complete loop is shown in Figs. 4B and 5 of Clement).

Regarding claim 11, Clement in view of House disclose the first securing element is disposed at an end of the wrist strap (shown at end of 54 in Fig. 2B of Clement) and the second securing element is disposed at an end of the cuff strap (shown at end of 56 in Fig. 2B).

Regarding claim 12, Clement in view of House disclose the third securing element (58 of Clement) is disposed on a dorsal section of the cuff portion (Fig. 2B shows the dorsal of the glove, and the dorsal section of the cuff portion is the section of element 50 that is located where element 58 is) arranged to extend over a back of the wearer's wrist (Examiner notes Fig. 2B shows element 58 on the dorsal of the glove and its location corresponding to where the wrist portion, 50, is).

Regarding claim 13, Clement in view of House disclose the wrist strap (54 of Clement) extends through a channel between a part of the third securing element (58) and the dorsal section of the cuff portion (section of 50 that is located 58 is, examiner notes the “channel” corresponds to the opening area of element 57 in Fig. 1B, which is shown between element 58 and section of element 50 that is located where element 58 is, and the area element 54 extends through in Fig. 5).

Regarding claim 14, Clement in view of House disclose each of the first securing element, second securing element and third securing element comprise one of hook and loop material (Par. 0061, lines: 13-20 and Par. 0064, lines: 20-23of Clement).

Regarding claim 15, Clement in view of House disclose when the second securing element is engaged with the third securing element (examiner notes due to combination presented above in claim 1 the second and third securing element are modified to engage with one another) more than 50% of the wrist strap (54, Fig. 4B of Clement) is covered by the cuff strap (56, examiner notes as shown in Fig. 4B).

Regarding claim 16, Clement in view of House disclose comprising two or more wrist straps (20 and 32, Fig. 9 of House), the wrist straps (20 and 32) being spaced along a or the length of the cuff portion (examiner notes as shown in Fig. 5-9) defined between the hand portion (portion of 21) and an end edge of the cuff portion (16, as shown in Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wrist strap as disclosed by Clement, by incorporating two wrist straps as taught by House, in order to enhance the securement between the glove and the users hand when the glove is worn.

Regarding claim 18, Clement and House has been previously discussed, but their teachings will again be summarized below. Clement and House disclose a first securing element of a wrist strap (54, Par. 0061, lines: 16-21, see Fig. 2B of Clement) connected to a second securing element of a cuff strap (56, Par. 0061, lines: 16-21 and Par. 0064, lines: 21-23, see Fig. 2B), a cuff portion (50), a third securing element on a part of the cuff portion (58, shown in Fig. 2B), second securing element engaged with the third securing element (Col. 4, lines: 19-23 of House, as shown in the process of Fig. 11-13 where the strap 20 wraps around and over the third securing element, 34 and the second securing element, 26, is positioned directly above the third securing element, 34).
Under the principles of combination, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would obviously perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir.1986). MPEP 2112.02

Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement in view of House, further in view of Bisaillon (US Patent 9,545,126).
Regarding claim 17, Clement in view of House disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not disclose the second securing element includes indicia indicating a distance from an end of the cuff strap adjacent the second securing element.
However, Bisaillon teaches yet another glove in the same field of endeavor of protecting a user’s hand when striking, wherein Bisaillon teaches an indicia (76, Fig. 1) on the glove, adjacent to and attached to a securing element (40, Fig. 1-1A, examiner notes element 76 is attached to element 40 when worn in the configuration shown in Fig. 1), indicating a distance from an end of the cuff strap adjacent the second securing element (“indicating a…element” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second securing element of Clement in view of House, by incorporating an indicia as taught by Bisaillon, in order to enhance the aesthetic of the glove.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See
PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.

/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHALED ANNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732