DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 11/25/25, Applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Claims 2-5 and 8 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1, 6-7 and 9-10 are pending.
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 .
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, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 217743189 U) in view of JP 2012528669 A (hereinafter referred to as the ‘669 reference).
With respect to claim 1, Zhang discloses a tube of compression stocking (pressure sock shown in fig 1 which has an upper sock part 34 that is tube shaped) with zipper (includes a zipper 3 as shown in fig 1), comprising a tube body (upper sock part 34 that has a tube shape as shown in fig 1) configured to be passed through by a leg of a user (configured to be applied to a user’s leg; see translation pgs 4 and 5), inner diameters of two ends of the tube body are different (as shown in fig 1, the diameter of part 34 is greater at the top near reinforcement 32 than at the bottom near sock part 33), further comprising a zipper on the tube body (zipper 3 on upper sock part 34 as shown in fig 1), the zipper is configured to press the tube body against the leg of the user (the zipper closes the two sides of opening 2 so that portion 34 applies pressure to the lower leg of the user – translation pg 5), wherein the zipper (3) comprises two zipper teeth tapes (as shown in fig 1 the zipper 3 includes zipper tapes on each side of opening 2) and a slider (the zipper 3 is illustrated as including a slider which is shown at the bottom of zipper 3 near sock part 33 in fig 1) configured to make the two zipper teeth tapes mesh with each other (the zipper functions to close the two sides of opening 2 – translation pg 5; the slider shown in fig 1 is interpreted as being the means for closing the two sides of the zipper; it is inherent that the cooperating zipper teeth tapes of a zipper mesh with each other in order to close the zipper), the two zipper teeth tapes extend from a first end of the two ends of the tube body with a smaller inner diameter (bottom of zipper 3 near the bottom of upper sock part 34 near sock part 33 in fig 1) to a second end of the two ends of the tube body with a greater inner diameter (top of zipper 3 at the top of upper sock part 34 where reinforcement 32 is located in fig 1) and are arranged in a V-shape (as shown in fig 1), an end of the two zipper teeth tapes with a greater interval is positioned on the second end of the two ends of the tube body with the greater inner diameter (as shown in fig 1, the gap between the two zipper tapes is greater at the top part of the zipper at the top of upper sock part 34 where reinforcement 32 is provided), and a difference between a maximum inner diameter (diameter at top of upper sock part 34) of the tube body (34) and a maximum interval of the two zipper teeth tapes (gap between the two zipper tapes at the top of the zipper where reinforcement 32 is provided in fig 1) is greater than a minimum inner diameter of the tube body (diameter of bottom of upper sock part 34 near sock part 33 in fig 1) (the top part of upper sock part 34 is interpreted as being wider than the bottom part of upper sock part 34 when zipper 3 is closed in order to conform to the wider calf part and narrower ankle part of a user - the difference between the diameter at the top of part 34 and the gap between the zipper tapes at the top is interpreted as being the width/diameter at the top of sock part 34 when the zipper is closed); wherein a first position of the tube body where the zipper is located (bottom of opening 2 where the bottom end of zipper 3 is provided near sock part 33 as shown in in fig 1) is provided with a tension part (expansion part 31 formed of elastic fabric as described on pg 5 of the translation elastic fabric is interpreted as being capable of tensioning), and the tension part is bendable (part 31 is formed of elastic fabric which inherently is flexible and capable of bending; furthermore, Zhang explicitly discloses that the fabric of part 31 is bendable by disclosing that the fabric is folded over to form reinforcement 32 – translation pg 5); wherein the tube body is not configured with a tube opening (as shown in fig 2, the area between the two corresponding portions of the zipper includes an expanding piece 31 and a reinforcement 32 across the top, thereby filling the gap between the two zipper portions such that there is no opening into the tube body), and the tension part (31) comprises an expansion zone formed of an area of the tube body between two sides of the zipper (part 31 is an expansion part formed of elastic fabric – translation pg 5; as shown in fig 1, expansion part 31 is provided between the two sides of opening 2 which each include a cooperating part of zipper 3).
Zhang does not, however, disclose that the slider is provided with an open member configured to be passed through by fingers of the user.
The ‘669 reference teaches a device for opening and closing a zipper on an article such as a compression stocking (shown in figs 8-9) wherein the device is an open member on a slider that is configured to be passed through by fingers of the user (knob portion 84 sized so that the operator's finger can easily pass through as shown in figs 8-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have added an open member configured to be passed through by fingers of the user, as taught by the ‘669 reference, to the slider on the zipper of Zhang, in order to assist a user with opening and closing of the zipper.
With respect to claim 9, Zhang in view of the ‘669 reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and the ‘669 reference also discloses that the open member comprises a ring (knob portion 84 is a ring as shown in fig 7B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have added an open member that comprises a ring, as taught by the ‘669 reference, to the slider on the zipper of Zhang, in order to permit easy passage of the user’s finger therethrough in order to assist a user with opening and closing of the zipper.
With respect to claim 10, Zhang in view of the ‘669 reference discloses the tube of compression stocking with zipper substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Zhang also discloses that the tube (upper sock part 34) is part of a compression stocking (part 34 is part of sock body 1 as shown in fig 1), wherein the first end of the two ends of the tube body with the smaller inner diameter (bottom end of upper sock part 34 near sock part 33 in fig 1) is provided with a stocking body configured for the user to wear on a foot (sock part 33 shown in fig 1 which is configured to be worn on the foot of a user; translation pg 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 217743189 U) in view of JP 2012528669 A (hereinafter referred to as the ‘669 reference) and further in view of Jeong (KR 20210126256 A).
With respect to claim 6, Zhang in view of the ‘669 reference discloses the tube of compression stocking with zipper substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that an easy-pull component is provided on the first end of the two ends of the tube body close to a foot of the user, the easy-pull component is close to the zipper, a straight line where the easy-pull component is located is consistent with a straight line where the zipper is located, and an elastic modulus of the easy-pull component is greater than an elastic modulus of the tube body.
Jeong, however, teaches a compression sock that includes an easy-pull component (pulling part 30; fig 4) is provided on the first end of the two ends of the tube body close to a foot of the user (provided at the bottom of the zipper near the foot part of the sock as shown in fig 4), the easy-pull component is close to the zipper (as shown in fig 4), a straight line where the easy-pull component is located is consistent with a straight line where the zipper is located (as shown in fig 4), and an elastic modulus of the easy-pull component is greater than an elastic modulus of the tube body (pulling part 30 is formed from non-elastic fiber yarn under zipper 20 and does not stretch when the zipper 20 is pulled up and worn because it lacks elasticity unlike the stocking 10, which is advantageous in locking the zipper – translation pg 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the compression stocking of Zhang in view of the ‘669 reference to include an easy-pull component is provided on the first end of the two ends of the tube body close to a foot of the user, the easy-pull component is close to the zipper, a straight line where the easy-pull component is located is consistent with a straight line where the zipper is located, and an elastic modulus of the easy-pull component is greater than an elastic modulus of the tube body, as taught by Jeong, in order to provide a configuration that assists a user in locking the zipper.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 217743189 U) in view of JP 2012528669 A (hereinafter referred to as the ‘669 reference) and Jeong (KR 20210126256 A) and further in view of Bell (US20150096106).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang in view of the ‘669 reference and further in view of Jeong discloses the tube of compression stocking with zipper substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 6) but does not disclose that the easy-pull component comprises a silk or linen. Bell, however, teaches a sock comprising a sock member 101 of “conventional construction” which may be configured as a sleeve for a user’s leg and, wherein, the sock member may be made of materials such as silk or linen (para [0017]). Thus, based on the teachings of Bell, use of silk and linen for constructing socks is customary in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the easy pull component on the sock of Zhang in view of the ‘669 reference and further in view of Jeong from a silk or linen material since Bell teaches that such materials are routinely used for constructing socks and, furthermore, because 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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-8 of the Response have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Office has noted Applicant’s argument that “Zhang is silent with respect to the more specific definition of the difference between the gap between the two zipper tapes at the top of the zipper where reinforcement 32 is provided being greater than the diameter of bottom of upper sock part 34 near sock part 33 in Fig. 1….” and “ [t]herefore…does not disclose the technical feature of, "a difference between a maximum inner diameter of the tube body and a maximum interval of the two zipper teeth tapes is greater than a minimum inner diameter of the tube body" as recited in amended claim 1”. The Office respectfully disagrees. In the claim rejections provided above, the Office has interpreted the maximum inner diameter of the tube body to be the diameter at the top of upper sock part 34, the maximum interval of the two zipper teeth tapes to be the gap between the two zipper tapes at the top of the zipper where reinforcement 32 is provided in fig 1, and the minimum inner diameter of the tube body to be the diameter of the bottom of upper sock part 34 near sock part 33 in fig 1. Furthermore, the difference between the diameter at the top of part 34 and the gap between the zipper tapes at the top has been interpreted as being the width/diameter at the top of sock part 34 when the zipper is closed. In Zhang, the top part of upper sock part 34 is interpreted as being wider than the bottom part of upper sock part 34 when zipper 3 is closed in order to conform to the wider calf part and narrower ankle part of a user – thus, for at least this reason, the Office maintains that Zhang discloses that a difference between a maximum inner diameter of the tube body and a maximum interval of the two zipper teeth tapes (i.e. the width/diameter at the top of sock part 34 when the zipper is closed) is greater than a minimum inner diameter of the tube body as recited in claim 1 of the present application.
The Office has also noted Applicant’s argument on page 7 that the tube body of Zhang is configured with a tube opening since the expansion elements 31 are sewn on the outer walls of both sides of the long opening 2 on the upper sock portion 34. The Office respectfully disagrees because as shown in fig 2, the area between the two corresponding portions of the zipper includes an expanding piece 31 and a reinforcement 32 across the top, thereby filling the gap between the two zipper portions such that there is no opening into the tube body.
The Office has also noted Applicant’s remaining arguments on pages 7-8, specifically those with respect to the ‘669 reference, Jeong, Bell and Curran, but for at least the same reasons as provided above, the Office is not persuaded by these arguments.
Therefore, for at least the reasons provided above, the Office maintains that the prior art of record reads on the claims substantially as recited in the present application.
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 CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786