DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on August 17, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 2-5, 9, 11-15, and 20-24 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 16-19 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 4898007)1 in view of Holcombe (US 2007/0093162), Bird (US 3250095)1, Olsson (US 2017/0370033)1, Shull (US 2012/0180195)1, and Akita (US 2018/0266024)1.
With respect to claim 1, Dahlgren teaches a sock comprising (i) a first zone at the toe of the sock wherein the yarn is predominately hydrophilic (first garment-region), (ii) a second zone at the heel of the sock wherein the yarn is predominately hydrophilic (first garment-region), and (iii) a third zone at the instep between the first and second zones wherein the yarn is predominately hydrophobic (second garment-region) (col. 1, lines 24-40). The yarn at the first and second zones (first garment-region) include hydrophilic yarns such as cotton in an amount between 50 and 100 percent of the total yarn at the first and second zones (col. 1, lines 50-53). The sock will necessarily have an inwardly-facing side that is intended to be facing inwardly towards a body of the wearer and an outwardly-facing side that is intended to be facing outwardly away from the body of the wearer.
Dahlgren is silent as to the hydrophobic yarns comprising at least 75% cotton.
Holcombe teaches a fabric that is capable of transferring liquid by wicking, where the fabric consists entirely of cotton fibers and is suitable for making sports garments or under garments that help keep a person dry and comfortable (paragraph [0002]) through the use of hydrophobic and hydrophilic yarns (paragraph [0007]). The hydrophobic yarn is made by pre-treating cotton fiber with a liquor containing a hydrophobic agent prior to the yarn being used to make the fabric (paragraph [0073]).
Holcombe further teaches that non-cellulosic man-made fibers lack the well-recognized moisture buffering capacity of cotton and other cellulose fibers, such that an optimal fabric will preferably be one that is made of cotton fibers and modified cotton fibers that possess some of the liquid wicking properties of technical synthetic fabrics (paragraph [0017]). It is noted that the use of man-made or synthetic fibers in the fabric is within the scope of the fabric of Holcombe (paragraphs [0070]-[0071]).
Since both Dahlgren and Holcombe teach hydrophobic and hydrophilic wicking fabrics containing cotton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic yarn of Dahlgren to be pretreated hydrophobic cotton in order to provide the hydrophobic third zone (second garment-region) with the moisture buffering capacity of cotton.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe silent as to the third zone (second garment-region) being formed of the Yarn A, Yarn B, and Yarn C as described in instant claim 1.
Bird teaches a knitted sock which has hydrophobic yarns (Yarn A) disposed against and in contact with the skin of a wearer to wick perspiration away from the skin of the wearer, hydrophilic yarns (Yarn B) disposed away from the wearer to absorb and hold the perspiration away from the skin of the wearer, and elastic yarns (Yarn C) to maintain the sock in contact with the skin of the wearer to ensure the wicking, absorbing, and holding action of the hydrophobic and hydrophilic yarns (col. 1, lines 46-56). The hydrophilic yarns may be cotton (cotton cellulose that lacks said hydrophobic chemical agent) (col. 3, lines 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic yarns in the third zone (second garment-region) of Dahlgren to be the yarns of Holcombe in order to allow perspiration to be wicked and held away from the skin of a wearer. It is noted that the hydrophobic yarns (Yarn A) would be cotton pretreated with a hydrophobic agent as described by Holcombe above.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe and Bird is silent as to the hydrophilic yarns (Yarn B) including no more than 10% beechwood cellulose and/or eucalyptus cellulose.
Olsson teaches blending beechwood fibers with cotton because they are stronger than cotton yarn but similarly breath and absorb moisture to help keep the wearer cooler (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cotton hydrophilic yarns (Yarn B) to include beechwood fibers in order to provide additional strength to the yarn while maintaining the breathability and the absorbency provided by the cotton. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the amount of beechwood fiber necessary, such as the claimed less than 10%, in order to provide the desired strength to the yarn.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, and Olsson is silent as to the Yarn C being formed from a long-chain synthetic polymer comprising at least 85% of segmented polyurethane and is capable of stretching 3 times its idle length.
Shull teaches socks with comprise Spandex (hydrophobic long-chain synthetic polymer comprising at least 85% segmented polyurethane) as an elastic yarn with cotton (paragraph [0009]). It is an industry known fact that Spandex (hydrophobic long-chain synthetic polymer comprising at least 85% segmented polyurethane) stretches more than cotton, and in particular can stretch up to six times its relaxed length (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elastic fiber (Yarn C) of Dahlgren in view of Holcombe and Bird to be Spandex (hydrophobic long-chain synthetic polymer comprising at least 85% segmented polyurethane) because Spandex (hydrophobic long-chain synthetic polymer comprising at least 85% segmented polyurethane) is known in the art as a suitable elastic fiber for cotton socks and can stretch up to six times its relaxed length.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, and Shull is silent as to the Spandex (Rear, Bird, Olsson, and Shull is silent as to the Spandex (Yarn C) having a thickness in the range of 10 denier to 30 denier.
Akita teaches a multilayer-structure circular knit fabric optimal for use in clothing that has superior moisture absorbability and cool touch sensation, superior quick drying after absorbing moisture and allows the obtaining of a cool sensation and perspiration processing performance while having a pleasant texture (paragraph [0001]). The knit fabric has a section where a cellulose-based continuous fiber and a hydrophobic fiber form the same knit loop (paragraph [0028]). The knit fabric may further comprise an elastic fiber, preferably a polyurethane elastic yarn, with a fineness of 15-80 dtex (13.5-72 denier), more preferably 20-60 dtex (18-54 denier), most preferably 20-50 dtex (18-45 denier) so as to not cause the clothing to become excessively heavy when worn (paragraph [0046]).
Since both Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, and Shull and Akita teach moisture control knit fabrics comprising hydrophilic, hydrophobic, and elastic yarns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Spandex (Yarn C) of Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, and Shull to have a fineness of 15-80 dtex (13.5-72 denier), more preferably 20-60 dtex (18-54 denier), most preferably 20-50 dtex (18-45 denier) in order to provide a sock that is not excessively heavy when worn.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita does not explicitly teach the drying relationships between the first and second zones (first garment-region) and the third zone (second garment-region), however it is reasonable to presume that the drying relationships are inherent to Dahlgren in view of O’Rear, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita. Support for said presumption can be found in that Dahlgren in view of O’Rear, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches similar materials as the claimed invention, particularly a conventional hydrophilic cotton in the first and second zones (first garment-region) and hydrophobic yarn, hydrophilic yarn, and elastic yarn in the third zone (second garment-region) similar to what is described in paragraph [0032] of the instant specification. Therefore the sock of Dahlgren in view of O’Rear, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita is expected to have the same drying properties as the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 19, Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dahlberg further teaches the third zone 13 (second garment-region) extends at and over the instep (col. 2, lines 59-68). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the third zone 13 (second garment-region) includes a garment-region that is beneath a foot arch of the wearer.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 4898007)2 in view of Holcombe (US 2007/0093162), Bird (US 3250095)1, Olsson (US 2017/0370033)1, Shull (US 2012/0180195)1, and Akita (US 2018/0266024)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoefnagels (“Biomimetic Superhydrophobic and Highly Oleophobic Cotton Textiles”)1.
With respect to claims 6-8, Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita is silent as to the hydrophobic cotton yarn of the third zone (second garment-region) being super-hydrophobic with a water contact angle of at least 155 degrees, comprises silica particles which have a dual-scale surface roughness, and comprises polydimethylsiloxane.
Hoefnagels teaches the introduction of silica particles to cotton fibers to generate a dual-scale roughness, followed by hydrophobization with polydimethylsiloxane (abstract). The treatment turns normally hydrophilic cotton superhydrophobic, exhibiting a static water contact angle of 155 degrees (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic cotton of the third zone (second garment-region) to be treated with silica particles to generate dual-scale roughness followed by hydrophobization with polydimethylsiloxane in order to provide cotton that is superhydrophobic with a contact angle of 155 degrees.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 4898007)3 in view of Holcombe (US 2007/0093162), Bird (US 3250095)1, Olsson (US 2017/0370033)1, Shull (US 2012/0180195)1, and Akita (US 2018/0266024)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Rear (US 7906177)1,4.
With respect to claims 10, Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita is silent as to the hydrophobic cotton (Yarn A) comprising an oleophobic oil-repellant chemical agent.
O’Rear teaches the production of hydrophobic and oleophobic articles (such as wool or cotton fabric) which retains air permeability thereby allowing for production of water and oil repellent cotton or wool garments which are also comfortable and easy to maintain/clean (col. 1, lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic cotton yarn of Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita to also be oleophobic in order to provide an article that is easy to maintain/clean.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 4898007)5 in view of Holcombe (US 2007/0093162), Bird (US 3250095)1, Olsson (US 2017/0370033)1, Shull (US 2012/0180195)1, and Akita (US 2018/0266024)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michel (US 2005/0176324)1.
With respect to claims 16-18, Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita is silent as to the garment being a shirt with the third zone (second garment-region) being located beneath a left-side armpit, a right-side armpit, or a generally vertical column that starts at a rear side of a collar and ends at a lower-central region of a back side of the shirt; is silent as to the garment being a type of pant with the third zone (second garment-region) covering a rear side of the knee; and is silent as to the garment being underwear or briefs with the third zone (second garment-region) covering a crotch area.
It is known from Michel that skin when rubbing against another surface of skin causes irritation and perspiration present in these areas, particularly those with body folds, cannot evaporate leading to an environment where bacteria, fungus and yeasts can form, damaging the already irritated skin (paragraph [0003]). These issue can appear anywhere two skin surfaces lie next to each other and rub together, but most often occur in the skin folds of the groin, the inner thigh area, underarms, between the ribs, and under and between the breasts (paragraph [0004]). Since irritation of the skin is known to result from moisture and friction (paragraph [0007]) the use of wicking fibers absorbs perspiration to keep the skin dry (paragraph [0014]). The apparel uses many materials including natural and man-made fibers as well as blends (paragraph [0012]) and is preferably knitted with plated fibers (paragraph [0017]).
Since Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita and Michel teaches wicking knitted structure which keeps specified areas dry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the third zone (second garment-region) of Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita in other garments where irritation from perspiration is an issue, such as in the armpits of a shirt, behind the rear side of a knee of a pair of pants, and in the crotch area of an undergarment in order to remove perspiration from the affected area.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement have been overcome by the amendments to the claims in the response filed August 17, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the response Applicant submits that Olsson provides no teaching or suggestion that the amount of beechwood within such a cotton/beechwood blend should be varied or optimized, much less that an amount of not more than 10% should be selected.
These arguments are not persuasive. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Olsson teaches blending beechwood fibers with cotton because they are stronger than cotton yarn but similarly breath and absorb moisture to help keep the wearer cooler (paragraph [0020]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cotton hydrophilic yarns (Yarn B) to include beechwood fibers in order to provide additional strength to the yarn while maintaining the breathability and the absorbency provided by the cotton. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the amount of beechwood fiber necessary, such as the claimed less than 10%, in order to provide the desired strength to the yarn.
On page 9 of the response Applicant submits that the mere identification of an elastic yarn as “Spandex” does not establish the particular chemical composition of the claim.
It is well established in the art that a long-chain synthetic polymer comprising at least 85% of segmented polyurethane is known generically as spandex (Encyclopedia Britannica; “Polyurethane”).
On pages 9-10 of the response Applicant submits that Akita provides no teaching or suggestion to selected the particular range of 10-30 denier for Yarn C as it does not teach that selecting a polyurethane yarn within the claimed denier range would provide any particular benefit when used as Yarn C together with the specific hydrophobic yarn A and hydrophilic yarn B required by claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case it is the combination of the references discussed above which arrive at the claimed Yarns A, B, and C as claimed, not Akita alone. Akita was relied on to teach the thickness of the Spandex (Yarn C). Akita teaches that an elastic polyurethane yarn with a fineness of most preferably 20-50 dtex (18-45 denier) provides clothing that is not excessively heavy (Akita; paragraph [0046]). The ordinary artisan would expect this benefit to be seen independent of the other yarns used in the fabric.
On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that none of the cited references teach or suggest the claimed drying properties, and that because the references fail to teach the particular combination and composition of Yarns A, B, and C as required by claim 1 the resulting properties are not inherent.
These arguments are not persuasive. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See MPEP2112(IV). As discussed above, Dahlgren in view of Holcombe, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teach the compositional and structural limitations of claim 1. It is noted that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP 2112(II). It is further noted that the inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness. See MPEP 2112.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to Applicant. See MPEP 2112(V). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shoes a sound basis for believing the products of the applicant and the prior art references are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing they are not. See MPEP 2112.01(I). In the instant case it has not been established that the claimed invention and the prior art invention differ.
The remainder of the arguments with respect to O’Rear not teaching the new amendment of pre-treated cotton have been considered but are moot in light of the new combination of references used above.
Conclusion
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Larissa Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Previously presented
3 Previously presented
4 Cited in IDS
5 Previously presented
