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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, received 18 February 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a non-final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Canceled
1-20
Pending
21-39
Presented for Examination
21-39
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing Objections and Specification Objections
Obviated by the amendments and withdrawn.
101 Rejections, 112(a) Rejections, 112(b) Rejections, 102 Rejections, 103 Rejections
Obviated by the amendments and withdrawn.
The arguments are drawn to newly added claims and are addressed in the rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 21: the first and second pads. The disclosure does not have support for any pads.
Claims 21 and 24: the first and second pad having different thicknesses. The disclosure does not have support for a first and second pad. The drawings do not show a first and second pad having different thicknesses. Para. 0038 of the present publication says there may be an embodiment where some elements have different thicknesses from others, but that is insufficient support for the specific recitation of the first and second pad having different thicknesses.
Claims 22 and 34: micro-perforations. Providing one or more of the existing drawings with a reference number for the micro-perforations would be sufficient to overcome this objection.
Claim 23: the pitch of the spiral-shaped element. The drawings do not show the spiral-shaped element (presumed to be element 4 in the figures) having a pitch, and it cannot be determined from the disclosure that the spiral-shaped element has a pitch and is not, for example, planar.
Claims 25, 27, 36, and 38: the structural modification element recited in the claim. Providing one or more of the existing drawings with a reference number for this structural element would be sufficient to overcome this objection.
Claims 26 and 37: the structural modification elements, plural, having a lateral extension. According to the disclosure, the lateral extension 51 is a feature of the thickening element 5. There is only one element 5. It is not clear what other elements have a lateral extension.
Claim 29: the first and second element
Claims 29 and 30: the cushioning element
Claim 29: the compression band. Para. 0202 of the present publication recites “This element indicated with 7 generates a compression and an elastic action of localized narrowing that stabilizes the ankle and has a massage effect during movement.” This is the only recitation of a compression element in combination with a reference number for the drawings. However, element 7 does not appear to correspond to the mid-foot area, so it is not clear if 7 is the claimed compression band or if the claimed compression band is supported by the disclosure.
Claim 31: the softer inner layer and stiffer outer layer of the cushioning element.
Claim 37: an embodiment where there is both a thickening element 5 (recited in claim 29) and other, plural structural modification elements having a lateral extension (recited in claim 37). The disclosure supports a thickening element 5 having a lateral extension 51, but claim 37 is not referring to the previously recited thickening element 5 but introducing other structural modification elements having a lateral extension, which is not supported by the disclosure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. 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. 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. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 21: the first and second pads. The disclosure does not have support for any pads.
Claims 21 and 24: the first and second pad having different thicknesses. The disclosure does not have support for a first and second pad. The drawings do not show a first and second pad having different thicknesses. Para. 0038 of the present publication says there may be an embodiment where some elements have different thicknesses from others, but that is insufficient support for the specific recitation of the first and second pad having different thicknesses. There is no support in the disclosure for the specific recitation that the first and second pads differ in thickness by at least 0.2 mm.
Claim 21: the spiral-shaped element comprising a layer having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall. Para. 0175 of the present publication discloses “This spiral-shaped element consists of a layer of material with a high coefficient of friction with the shoe to increase the grip between the sock and the shoe.” There is no disclosure of the coefficient of friction of the knit wall such that it can be determined the spiral-shaped element has a greater coefficient of friction than that of the knit wall.
Claim 23: the pitch of the spiral-shaped element. The drawings do not show the spiral-shaped element (presumed to be element 4 in the figures) having a pitch, and it cannot be determined from the disclosure that the spiral-shaped element has a pitch and is not, for example, planar. The disclosure does not support the spiral-shaped element having a pitch.
Claims 25, 27, 36, and 38: the structural modification element recited in the claim. Providing one or more of the existing drawings with a reference number for this structural element would be sufficient to overcome this objection.
Claims 26 and 37: the structural modification elements, plural, having a lateral extension. According to the disclosure, the lateral extension 51 is a feature of the thickening element 5. There is only one element 5. It is not clear what other elements have a lateral extension.
Claim 28: each structural modification element comprising a polymeric layer made from polyurethane. Para. 0181 of the present publication discloses the band or strip may be PU, but there is no disclosure of any other structural modification element being PU.
Claim 28: each structural modification element comprising a combination of the claimed materials. The disclosure has support for silicone, thermoplastic elastomer, and PU, but there is no disclosure of these materials in combination.
Claim 29: the first and second element
Claims 29 and 30: the cushioning element
Claim 29: the compression band. Para. 0202 of the present publication recites “This element indicated with 7 generates a compression and an elastic action of localized narrowing that stabilizes the ankle and has a massage effect during movement.” This is the only recitation of a compression element in combination with a reference number for the drawings. However, element 7 does not appear to correspond to the mid-foot area, so it is not clear if 7 is the claimed compression band or if the claimed compression band is supported by the disclosure.
Claim 21: the first element having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall. Para. 0178 of the present publication discloses “In relation to the modification elements 1, 2, 3 and 4, these areas are constituted by a material with a high coefficient of friction, preferably applied by means of a screen printing process to the knitted fabric forming the wall of the sock.” Even if the claimed “first element” is one of the modification elements 1, 2, 3, or 4, there is no disclosure of the coefficient of friction of the knit wall such that it can be determined the “first element” has a greater coefficient of friction than that of the knit wall.
Claim 29: the compression band having a lower extensibility than the coefficient of friction of the knit wall. There is no support in the disclosure for this recitation.
Claim 29: The thickening element having a lower extensibility than an extensibility of the knit wall.
Claim 31: the softer inner layer and stiffer outer layer of the cushioning element.
Claim 35: the compression band having an extensibility at least 20% lower than the extensibility of the knit wall
Claim 37: an embodiment where there is both a thickening element 5 (recited in claim 29) and other, plural structural modification elements having a lateral extension (recited in claim 37). The disclosure supports a thickening element 5 having a lateral extension 51, but claim 37 is not referring to the previously recited thickening element 5 but introducing other structural modification elements having a lateral extension, which is not supported by the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: insert the word –element—after “spiral-shaped” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 29-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 29 recites “the foot” in line 2 which is human anatomy and non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 21-39 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. The following limitations are not supported by the originally filed disclosure and are therefore new matter.
Claim 21: the first and second pads. The disclosure does not have support for any pads.
Claims 21 and 24: the first and second pad having different thicknesses. The disclosure does not have support for a first and second pad. The drawings do not show a first and second pad having different thicknesses. Para. 0038 of the present publication says there may be an embodiment where some elements have different thicknesses from others, but that is insufficient support for the specific recitation of the first and second pad having different thicknesses. There is no support in the disclosure for the specific recitation that the first and second pads differ in thickness by at least 0.2 mm.
Claim 21: the spiral-shaped element comprising a layer having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall. Para. 0175 of the present publication discloses “This spiral-shaped element consists of a layer of material with a high coefficient of friction with the shoe to increase the grip between the sock and the shoe.” There is no disclosure of the coefficient of friction of the knit wall such that it can be determined the spiral-shaped element has a greater coefficient of friction than that of the knit wall.
Claim 23: the pitch of the spiral-shaped element. The drawings do not show the spiral-shaped element (presumed to be element 4 in the figures) having a pitch, and it cannot be determined from the disclosure that the spiral-shaped element has a pitch and is not, for example, planar. The disclosure does not support the spiral-shaped element having a pitch.
Claims 25, 27, 36, and 38: the structural modification element recited in the claim. Providing one or more of the existing drawings with a reference number for this structural element would be sufficient to overcome this objection.
Claims 26 and 37: the structural modification elements, plural, having a lateral extension. According to the disclosure, the lateral extension 51 is a feature of the thickening element 5. There is only one element 5. It is not clear what other elements have a lateral extension.
Claim 28: each structural modification element comprising a polymeric layer made from polyurethane. Para. 0181 of the present publication discloses the band or strip may be PU, but there is no disclosure of any other structural modification element being PU.
Claim 28: each structural modification element comprising a combination of the claimed materials. The disclosure has support for silicone, thermoplastic elastomer, and PU, but there is no disclosure of these materials in combination.
Claim 29: the first and second element
Claims 29 and 30: the cushioning element
Claim 29: the compression band. Para. 0202 of the present publication recites “This element indicated with 7 generates a compression and an elastic action of localized narrowing that stabilizes the ankle and has a massage effect during movement.” This is the only recitation of a compression element in combination with a reference number for the drawings. However, element 7 does not appear to correspond to the mid-foot area, so it is not clear if 7 is the claimed compression band or if the claimed compression band is supported by the disclosure.
Claim 21: the first element having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall. Para. 0178 of the present publication discloses “In relation to the modification elements 1, 2, 3 and 4, these areas are constituted by a material with a high coefficient of friction, preferably applied by means of a screen printing process to the knitted fabric forming the wall of the sock.” Even if the claimed “first element” is one of the modification elements 1, 2, 3, or 4, there is no disclosure of the coefficient of friction of the knit wall such that it can be determined the “first element” has a greater coefficient of friction than that of the knit wall.
Claim 29: the compression band having a lower extensibility than the coefficient of friction of the knit wall. There is no support in the disclosure for this recitation.
Claim 29: The thickening element having a lower extensibility than an extensibility of the knit wall.
Claim 31: the softer inner layer and stiffer outer layer of the cushioning element.
Claim 35: the compression band having an extensibility at least 20% lower than the extensibility of the knit wall
Claim 37: an embodiment where there is both a thickening element 5 (recited in claim 29) and other, plural structural modification elements having a lateral extension (recited in claim 37). The disclosure supports a thickening element 5 having a lateral extension 51, but claim 37 is not referring to the previously recited thickening element 5 but introducing other structural modification elements having a lateral extension, which is not supported by the disclosure.
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected.
The claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 26, 29, and 37 recite “the structural modification elements” at least once. It cannot be determined to which or all of the plurality of structural modification elements the recitation is referring.
Claim 29 is indefinite because it positively structurally recites the sole of a shoe, although the sole of a shoe does not appear to be part of the present invention.
Claim 29 is rendered indefinite by the recitation “a compression band comprising a layer of material having a lower extensibility than the coefficient of friction of the knit wall adjacent thereto” because it is unclear how the extensibility is comparable to the coefficient of friction.
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected.
The claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 21 and 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings (US 20140331387 A1) in view of Ogden (US 5708985 A) and Hilbert (US 20050144703 A1).
As to claim 21, Hennings discloses a sock (title) comprising: a knit wall defining a foot region and a leg region of the sock (see FIGS; para. 0058 discloses the sock is knit); and
a plurality of structural modification elements (at least 141, 241, and 31 are applied on the knit fabric), each structural modification element consisting of one or more layers of material applied onto or into the knit wall to locally modify one or more of friction, thickness, stiffness, or compression (at least 141, 241, and 31 are applied on the knit fabric);
wherein the plurality of structural modification elements is disposed on regions of the sock that, in a worn condition, correspond to regions of a foot (see FIGS);
wherein the structural modification elements comprise:
a compression strip formed by a layer having a lower extensibility than a portion of the knit wall adjacent thereto (Hennings 260, para. 0063 discloses 260 is firm relative to adjacent portion 291), the compression strip extending across a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a plantar arch of the foot to provide plantar compression (see FIGS);
wherein at least one anti-slip element extends along a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a first toe toward the first metatarsal to increase grip with a shoe (150, 170, 250, 270, 35, and/ or 370); and
wherein the structural modification elements are arranged and dimensioned to harmonize a dynamic behavior of the sock with foot biomechanics during activities requiring rapid changes of direction (capable of harmonizing).
Hennings does not disclose a first pad located on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a root of a first metatarsal of the foot, a second pad located on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a root of a fifth metatarsal of the foot, the first pad and the second pad having different thicknesses.
It is noted that Hennings discloses a pad 150 or 170, see FIGS 1A-1B in the region corresponding to a root of the first and fifth metatarsals, but does not disclose two pads.
Ogden teaches a similar sock including a first pad located on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a root of a first metatarsal of the foot (FIG 5, one of 52 or 56’ corresponding to a root of a first metatarsal of the foot),a second pad located on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a root of a fifth metatarsal of the foot (another one of 52 or 56’ corresponding to a root of a fifth metatarsal of the foot). 52 and 56’ are sections of enhanced thickness (52 and 56’ are areas of terry loops with flat stitches therebetween) to increase comfort.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide first and second pads as taught by Ogden, in order to increase wearer comfort.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first pad and the second pad having different thicknesses, in order to provide a better fit in the shoe depending on the wearer’s foot anatomy and increased cushioning in areas of greater impact and decreased cushioning in areas of lesser impact, so as not to impede the wearer’s dexterity.
Hennings does not disclose a spiral-shaped element centered on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a pivot point of the foot, the spiral-shaped element comprising a layer having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall so as to increase grip during changes of direction.
Hennings FIGS 2G-2H discloses a concentric circle shaped element in the claimed region.
Hennings’ element is concentric circles, which is very similar to a spiral shape. One of ordinary skill would expect the element to work equally well with a concentric circle or spiral shape.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a spiral shape instead of concentric circles, for the purpose of aesthetics.
Hilbert teaches an element having a layer (“solidified material”) having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall so as to increase grip during changes of direction (para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a layer having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall so as to increase grip during changes of direction, in order to prevent slipping to prevent falls.
As to claim 23, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 21, wherein the spiral-shaped has a pitch selected to increase rotational grip during the rapid changes of direction (FIG 2E shows a pitch, capable of increasing rotational grip).
As to claim 24, Hennings does not disclose the sock of claim 21, wherein the first pad and the second pad differ in thickness by at least 0.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first pad and the second pad differ in thickness by at least 0.2 mm, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first pad and the second pad differ in thickness by at least 0.2 mm, in order to provide a better fit in the shoe depending on the wearer’s foot anatomy and increased cushioning in areas of greater impact and decreased cushioning in areas of lesser impact, so as not to impede the wearer’s dexterity.
As to claim 25, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 21, wherein at least one structural modification element extends continuously from a region corresponding to the plantar arch to a region corresponding to a heel of the foot (150 in FIG 1A, 150 in combination with 140 in FIG 1A, 240 and/ or 241 in FIG 2B, and/ or in FIG 3D).
As to claim 26, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 21, wherein the structural modification elements have a lateral extension extending on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a medial or lateral mid-foot region (150 in FIG 1A, 141 in FIG 1B, 291 in FIG 2G-2H, 240 and/ or 241 in FIG 2G-2H, 390 and/ or 391 and/ or 350 in FIG 3C).
As to claim 27, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 21, wherein at least one structural modification element extends continuously from a region corresponding to a plantar arch to a heel region of the foot (150 in FIG 1A, 150 in combination with 140 in FIG 1A, 240 and/ or 241 in FIG 2B, and/ or in FIG 3D).
As to claim 28, Hennings does not disclose the sock of claim 21, wherein each structural modification element comprises a polymeric layer made from silicone, a thermoplastic elastomer, polyurethane, or a combination thereof.
Hennings disclose slip-resistant material including silicone, but does not disclose each element is silicone (paras. 0051, 0062, 0072).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide each element made from silicone, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide each element made from silicone in order to prevent slipping (Hennings paras. 0051, 0062, 0072).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings (US 20140331387 A1) in view of Ogden (US 5708985 A) and Hilbert (US 20050144703 A1) and further in view of McCuaig (US 20180317565 A1).
As to claim 22, Hennings does not disclose the sock of claim 21, wherein at least one structural modification element comprises micro-perforations to increase breathability of the knit wall.
McCuaig teaches a similar sock including micro-perforations to increase breathability of the knit wall (paras. 0063 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide micro-perforations to increase breathability of the knit wall in order to improve ventilation and airflow (McCuaig paras. 0063 and 0096).
Claim(s) 29-33 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings (US 20140331387 A1) in view of Miller (US 20180325196 A1) and Hilbert (US 20050144703 A1).
As to claim 29, Hennings discloses a sock (title) comprising: a knit wall defining a foot region and a leg region of the foot (see FIGS; para. 0058 discloses the sock is knit); and a plurality of structural modification elements (at least 141, 241, and 31 are applied on the knit fabric), each structural modification element consisting of one or more layers of material applied onto or into the knit wall to locally modify one or more of friction, thickness, stiffness, or compression (at least 141, 241, and 31 are applied on the knit fabric);
wherein the structural modification elements are disposed on regions of the sock that, in a worn condition, correspond to regions of a foot (see FIGS);
wherein the structural modification elements comprise:
a first element extending over substantially an entire region of the sock corresponding to a sole of a shoe (140 comprising 141, 240 comprising 241, 340 comprising 341, where 141, 241, and 341 are silicone as disclosed in paras. 0051, 0062, and 0072), the first element having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall so as to reduce slippage between the sock and the shoe during thrust transmission (para. 0055 discloses the material of the knit, and these materials have a lower coefficient of friction than silicone);
a second element extending over a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a first metatarsal of the foot (250, 350),
a compression band comprising a layer of material having a lower extensibility than the coefficient of friction of the knit wall adjacent thereto (260 has lower extensibility than the coefficient of friction of 291, as best understood), the compression band being disposed externally to the knit wall over a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a mid-foot area so as to provide mid-foot compression (see FIGS);
an arch-support element comprising a printed or applied layer disposed on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a plantar arch (291); and
a thickening element (210/211/212/213) the thickening element extending over a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to an Achilles-tendon region and/or a calf region to assist in supporting posterior-chain musculature (see FIGS); and
wherein the structural modification elements cooperate to optimize thrust transmission during activities including sports that comprise cycling and golf and that rely on linear force generation (capable of optimizing thrust transmission).
Hennings does not disclose a cushioning element comprising a layer of a thermoplastic material applied onto a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to roots of metatarsal heads, the cushioning element being configured to attenuate localized pressure peaks and to enhance force transfer to the shoe or a pedal.
Hennings does disclose a cushioning element that, in a worn condition, corresponds to roots of metatarsal heads, the cushioning element being configured to attenuate localized pressure peaks and to enhance force transfer to the shoe or a pedal (150, 170, 270, 290, 350, 370).
Miller teaches a similar garment, including a cushioning element comprising a layer of thermoplastic material (116, 120, see para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide thermoplastic material, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide thermoplastic material, in order to provide a material with the desired flexibility and elasticity (Miller para. 0056) for wearer comfort and freedom of movement.
Hennings does not disclose the second element having a coefficient of friction greater the coefficient of friction of the knit wall to increase grip during foot-to-shoe thrust.
Hilbert teaches an element having a layer (“solidified material”) having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall so as to increase grip during changes of direction (para. 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a layer having a coefficient of friction greater than a coefficient of friction of the knit wall so as to increase grip during changes of direction, in order to prevent slipping to prevent falls.
Hennings does not disclose the thickening element formed by a layer having a lower extensibility than an extensibility of the knit wall adjacent thereto.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the thickening element formed by a layer having a lower extensibility than an extensibility of the knit wall adjacent thereto, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the thickening element formed by a layer having a lower extensibility than an extensibility of the knit wall adjacent thereto, for wearer comfort and freedom of movement.
As to claim 30, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein the cushioning element extends across a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to multiple metatarsal roots (capable of corresponding).
As to claim 31, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein the cushioning element comprises a multilayer structure (e.g. para. 0063, each fabric is a layer), but does not disclose a softer inner layer and a stiffer outer layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a softer inner layer and a stiffer outer layer, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a softer inner layer and a stiffer outer layer, to cushion the wearer’s foot during walking while protecting the wearer’s foot from the surface on which the wearer is walking.
As to claim 32, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein the thickening element extends along a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to both an Achilles tendon region and a portion of a calf region (see FIGS).
As to claim 33, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein at least one first or second element extends onto a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a big-toe region to improve propulsion (see FIGS, capable of corresponding).
As to claim 35, Hennings does not disclose the sock of claim 29, wherein the compression band has an extensibility that is at least 20% lower than the extensibility of the knit wall adjacent to the compression band.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the compression band has an extensibility that is at least 20% lower than the extensibility of the knit wall adjacent to the compression band, since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the compression band has an extensibility that is at least 20% lower than the extensibility of the knit wall adjacent to the compression band, for wearer comfort and freedom of movement.
As to claim 36, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein at least one structural modification element extends continuously from a region corresponding to the plantar arch to a region corresponding to the heel (150 in FIG 1A, 150 in combination with 140 in FIG 1A, 240 and/ or 241 in FIG 2B, and/ or in FIG 3D).
As to claim 37, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein the structural modification elements have a lateral extension extending on a region of the sock that, in a worn condition, corresponds to a medial or lateral mid-foot region (150 in FIG 1A, 141 in FIG 1B, 291 in FIG 2G-2H, 240 and/ or 241 in FIG 2G-2H, 390 and/ or 391 and/ or 350 in FIG 3C).
As to claim 38, Hennings discloses the sock of claim 29, wherein at least one structural modification element extends continuously from a region corresponding to a plantar arch to a heel region of the foot (150 in FIG 1A, 150 in combination with 140 in FIG 1A, 240 and/ or 241 in FIG 2B, and/ or in FIG 3D).
As to claim 39, Hennings does not disclose the sock of claim 29, wherein each structural modification element comprises a polymeric layer made from silicone, a thermoplastic elastomer, polyurethane, or a combination thereof.
Hennings does disclose some of the elements are silicone, but not each of the elements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide each element made from silicone, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide each element made from silicone in order to prevent slipping (Hennings paras. 0051, 0062, 0072).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennings (US 20140331387 A1) in view of Miller (US 20180325196 A1) and Hilbert (US 20050144703 A1) and further in view of McCuaig (US 20180317565 A1).
As to claim 34, Hennings does not disclose the sock of claim 29, wherein at least one structural modification element comprises micro-perforations to increase breathability of the knit wall.
McCuaig teaches a similar sock including micro-perforations to increase breathability of the knit wall (paras. 0063 and 0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide micro-perforations to increase breathability of the knit wall in order to improve ventilation and airflow (McCuaig paras. 0063 and 0096).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 571-272-5559. 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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732