DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 February 23, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, and 16-19 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to recite the limitation “said inwardly-facing side comprising a knit structure in which each knit loop has Yarn B and Yarn C looped together around Yarn A; and said outwardly-facing side comprising a knit structure in which each knit loop has Yarn A and Yarn C looped together around Yarn B” in lines 28-31. The instant specification does not provide support for a garment with an inwardly-facing side comprising one knit structure and an outwardly-facing side comprising a different knit structure.
A description of the knitting structures comprising Yarn A, Yarn B, and Yarn C starts at paragraph [0016] of the instant specification. The different knitting structures are shown independently in different figures. For example, the knitting structure 101 where Yarn B and Yarn C are looped together around Yarn A is shown in Fig. 1A (instant specification; paragraphs [0016], [0031]). Similarly, the knitting structure 102 where Yarn A and Yarn C are looped together around Yarn B is shown in Fig. 1B (instant specification; paragraphs [0033]-[0034]). It is therefore clear from the instant specification that knitting structures 101 and 102 are separate embodiments. This section is silent as to two knitting structures being used simultaneously on separate surfaces as claimed.
With respect to differences between inwardly-facing surfaces and outwardly-facing surfaces, the instant specification discusses how they may be treated differently (instant specification; paragraphs [0084]-[0090]). For example, the inwardly-facing surface and outwardly-facing surface may have any combination of a hydrophobic, hydrophilic treatment, or no treatment (instant specification; paragraphs [0084]-[0090]). Therefore, with respect to the claimed surfaces, the instant specification discusses them differing in treatment, but not in knit structure as is claimed.
Therefore the instant specification does not provide support for an inwardly-facing side comprising a knit structure in which each knit loop has Yarn B and Yarn C looped together around Yarn A and an outwardly-facing side comprising a knit structure in which each knit loop has Yarn A and Yarn C looped together around Yarn B as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 6-8, 10, and 16-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
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, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 4898007)1 in view of O’Rear (US 7906177)1,2, Bird (US 3250095)1, Olsson (US 2017/0370033)1, Shull (US 2012/0180195)1, and Akita (US 2018/0266024)1.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, 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).
Dahlgren is silent as to the hydrophobic yarns comprising at least 75% cotton.
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 yarn of Dahlgren to be the hydrophobic and oleophobic cotton described by O’Rear in order to provide the hydrophobic third zone (second garment-region) with air permeability, comfort, and ease of maintaining/cleaning.
Dahlgren in view of O’Rear 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 Bird 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 treated with a hydrophobic agent as described by O’Rear above.
Bird further teaches the hydrophilic yarns 15 (Yarn B) are plated with the hydrophobic yarns 14 (Yarn A) (col. 2, lines 53-58) and the elastic yarns 16 (Yarn C) are plied together with the hydrophilic yarns 15 (Yarn B) (col. 2, lines 59-68). As each yarn is present in each knit loop, this necessarily results in a structure where the hydrophilic yarn 15 (Yarn B) and the elastic yarn 16 (Yarn C) are looped together around the hydrophobic yarn 14 (Yarn A) and the hydrophobic yarn 14 (Yarn A) and the elastic yarn 16 (Yarn C) are looped together around the hydrophilic yarn 15 (Yarn B ) (Fig. 1) on both an inwardly- and outwardly-facing side.
Dahlgren in view of O’Rear 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 O’Rear, 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 O’Rear 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 O’Rear, 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 O’Rear, 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 O’Rear, 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 O’Rear, 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 O’Rear, 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)3 in view of O’Rear (US 7906177)1,4, 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 O’Rear, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dahlgren in view of O’Rear, 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) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlgren (US 4898007)5 in view of O’Rear (US 7906177)1,6, 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 O’Rear, Bird, Olsson, Shull, and Akita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Dahlgren in view of O’Rear, 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 O’Rear, 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 O’Rear, 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 §103
Applicant’s arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the response Applicant submits that O’Rear relates only to a pre-formed sheet onto which a hydrophobic coating is applied and does not teach or suggest modification of individual yarns which can be combined with additional types of yarns in order to provide the hydrophobic third zone of claim 1.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a hydrophobic third zone) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, 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, O’Rear was not relied on to teach the inclusion of an additional zone as alleged, but rather was relied on to modify the yarns used in the already existing zones of Dahlgren. Specifically, Dahlgren teaches first and second zones comprising predominately hydrophilic yarn (first garment-region) and a third zone where the yarn is predominately hydrophobic (second garment-region) (Dahlgren; col. 1, lines 24-40). However, Dahlgren is silent as to the hydrophobic yarns of the third zone (second garment-region) comprising at least 75% cotton as claimed.
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 (O’Rear; col. 1, lines 56-67). 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 hydrophobic yarn of Dahlgren to be the hydrophobic and oleophobic cotton described by O’Rear in order to provide the hydrophobic third zone (second garment-region) with air permeability, comfort, and ease of maintaining/cleaning.
On page 7 of the response Applicant submits that the amendments to claim 1 specify that Yarn B (hydrophilic) and Yarn B (hydrophobic) are looped together around Yarn A (hydrophobic) on the inwardly-facing side of the garment-region, such that hydrophilic Yarn B as well as hydrophobic Yarn C would be disposed against the skin of the wearer contrary to Bird which teaches that the hydrophilic Yarn B is disposed away from the wearer.
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the hydrophilic yarn B and hydrophobic Yarn A are disposed against the skin of the wearer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is respectfully submitted that the claim does not specify the location of the yarns within the specified side. The inwardly-facing side is specified as comprising a knit structure in which each knit loop has Yarn B and Yarn C looped together around Yarn A, however there is no requirement that Yarn B and Yarn C be in contact with the wearer. It is well known in the art that yarn may be plated to form a double-sided single layer fabric (see e.g., paragraph [0029] of Akita), therefore it is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to plate Yarn B and Yarn C such that Yarn B faces away from the wearer within the inwardly-facing side, thus fulfilling the desire of Bird to have the hydrophilic yarn disposed away from the wearer.
On pages 7-8 of the response Applicant submits that Olsson teaches the weight of the second yarn, which may be beechwood, is 30% of the total weight of the fabric and provides no teaching regarding the weight percentage of the beechwood cellulose in Yarn B itself.
These arguments are not persuasive. The rejection above and previously did not rely on the teaching describing the use of 30 wt% beechwood fiber in the entire fabric and did not allege it reads on the claimed limitation. 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.
Conclusion
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 Cited in IDS
3 Previously presented
4 Cited in IDS
5 Previously presented
6 Cited in IDS
Prosecution Insights