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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on December 19, 2025, claims 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 16-20 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on December 19, 2025, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated September 25, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because at line 8, “each raised cushioning pod” should read “each discrete raised cushioning pod”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 19 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein individual capping loops of the respective plurality of yarn loops extend over more than one complete terry loop” at lines 4-5. It is unclear what is considered a “complete” terry loop as opposed to an incomplete terry loop. It is unclear if Applicant is instead intending to recite language similar to that of claim 10 with respect to extension of the capping looped strands. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If intending to recite language similar to that of claim 10, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein individual capping loops of the respective plurality of yarn loops extend completely over more than one terry loop”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein individual capping loops of the respective plurality of yarn loops extend over more than one complete terry loop” at lines 6-8. It is unclear what is considered a “complete” terry loop as opposed to an incomplete terry loop. It is unclear if Applicant is instead intending to recite language similar to that of claim 10 with respect to extension of the capping looped strands. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If intending to recite language similar to that of claim 10, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein individual capping loops of the respective plurality of yarn loops extend completely over more than one terry loop”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 4,732,015 to Abrams et al. (hereinafter, “Abrams”), in view of US 2008/0041113 to Mori et al. (hereinafter, “Mori”), and in view of US 2013/0172926 to Barker (hereinafter, “Barker”).
Regarding claim 1, Abrams teaches a cushioned performance sock (See Abrams, Figs. 1-2; abstract; sock (10)), comprising: at least one cushioning regions including a plurality of discrete raised cushioning pods disposed on an interior surface of the cushioned performance sock, wherein each discrete raised cushioning pod of the plurality of discrete raised cushioning pods comprises a plurality of terry loops (See Abrams, Figs. 2-4 and Annotated Figs. 2 & 4 of Abrams below; double terry cushioning areas/regions (26, 28, 30, 32) on interior surface of sock; regions include pods of terry loops capped by other, longer terry loops; Col. 7, lines 23-51; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); and a plurality of mesh regions (See annotated Fig. 2 of Abrams below; regions without double terry loops on sock body; knit structure of the sock forms a mesh structure having holes or spaces between knit courses); wherein each of the plurality of mesh regions comprise a plurality of mesh windows disposed on an exterior surface of the cushioned performance sock (See annotated Fig. 2 of Abrams below; mesh regions on sock body are a knitted structure that forms a mesh structure having holes or spaces between knit courses which provide openings in the knit pattern, i.e., mesh windows on an exterior surface of the sock).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Abrams
PNG
media_image2.png
317
707
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Abrams
That said, although teaching mesh regions with openings, i.e., the mesh windows, Abrams is silent to each mesh window offset from the interior surface by a plurality of yarn loops extending a width of each mesh window.
However, Mori, in a related sock art, is directed to a sock having a varied, knitted structure in order to provide strength, support, and ventilation at different parts of the sock where needed (See Mori, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Mori teaches each mesh window offset from the interior surface by a plurality of yarn loops extending a width of each mesh window (See Mori, Fig. 8; portion of the sock interior includes mesh regions providing a base for short and long terry loops; the terry loops float and offset mesh fabric from an interior of the sock (i.e., terry loops are positioned between mesh fabric and interior; [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form additional terry loops on the interior of the mesh regions of the sock of Abrams as disclosed by Mori in order to achieve a cushioning effect and ventilation at the same time (See Mori, [0042]).
That said, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori, as discussed above) is silent to wherein the at least one cushioning region includes a first portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a first density and a second portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a second density different from the first density.
However, Barker, in a related supportive sock art, is directed to an item of graduated compression hosiery comprising a panel adapted to provided targeted support on an interior of the hosiery at one or more sites of the wearer’s leg. Said panel includes a plurality of protrusions which may be formed by fluff fiber which are capable of proving cushioning as well as compressive support (See Barker, Figs. 1-2; abstract; [0016]). More specifically, Barker teaches wherein the at least one cushioning region includes a first portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a first density and a second portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a second density different from the first density (See Barker, Fig. 1; a density of a first, center portion of the pad having a first number of protrusions is greater than a density of a second, outermost perimeter ring of the pad having a second, lesser number of protrusions; the pad is gradated from an outermost ring toward a center of the pad).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to apply the gradated fiber protrusion pattern disclosed by Barker to the cushioning regions of the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams in order to provide concentrated or targeted support at the cushioned location (See Barker, [0011], [0020]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein each mesh window of the plurality of mesh windows comprises a floating mesh fabric formed within a knit structure of the cushioned performance sock (See Mori, Fig. 8; portion of the modified sock interior includes mesh regions providing a base for short and long terry loops; the terry loops float and offset mesh fabric from an interior of the sock (i.e., terry loops are positioned between mesh fabric and interior; [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the plurality of mesh regions corresponds to an arch and a top of a foot when worn (See annotated Fig. 2 of Abrams above; mesh regions are capable of corresponding to an arch and a top of a foot when worn).
Regarding claim 5, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the at least one cushioning region corresponds to a ball and a heel of a foot when worn (See Abrams, Fig. 2; double terry cushioning areas/regions (26, 28, 30, 32) are capable of corresponding to ball and heel of a foot of a wearer when worn).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 1,553,811 to Gilbert (hereinafter, “Gilbert”).
Regarding claim 6, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to a ribbed region.
However, Gilbert, in a related sock art, is direct to a sock having a ribbed toe portion (See Gilbert, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Gilbert teaches a ribbed region (ribbed toe (5)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the toe end of the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams to have the ribbed construction disclosed by Gilbert in order to allow for improved stretching in the toe region and thereby reduce wear and tear and prevent the formation of holes (See Gilbert, page 1, line 110 – page 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 7, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori, Barker and Gilbert, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein the ribbed region is disposed adjacent a toe area of the cushioned performance sock (See Gilbert, Fig. 2; ribbed region (5) is adjacent a toe area of sock; as applied to the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams, the ribbed region would be positioned at the toe end at least adjacent to another more interior area of the toe; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 5,708,984 to Shofner (hereinafter, “Shofner”).
Regarding claim 8, although the sock of Abrams is circular-knitted, Abrams is silent to any seaming. Therefore, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., Abrams in view of Mori and Barker, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the cushioned performance sock comprises a single seam disposed in a toe area of the cushioned performance sock.
However, Shofner, in a related sock art, is directed to a circular-knitted sock having a toe seam of a variety of colors such as of a different color than the body of the sock (See Shofner, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Shofner teaches wherein the cushioned performance sock comprises a single seam disposed in a toe area of the cushioned performance sock (See Shofner, sock (10) includes a single seam (17) at the toe of the sock; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams to have a single seam at the toe as disclosed by Shofner for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, for aesthetic purposes, wherein a wearer can have distinct or different seam color than sock body color, for the purposes of easily matching pairs of socks together based on distinct seam colors, and/or for using a well-known and understood method of closing one end of a circular-knitted structure (See Shofner, Col. 5, line 51 – Col. 6, line 12).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Mori.
Regarding claim 16, Abrams teaches a cushioned performance sock (See Abrams, Figs. 1-2; abstract; sock (10)), comprising: a cushioning region including a plurality of discrete raised cushioning pods disposed on an interior surface of the cushioned performance sock, wherein each discrete raised cushioning pod of the plurality of discrete raised cushioning pods comprises a plurality of terry loops (See Abrams, Figs. 2-4 and Annotated Figs. 2 & 4 of Abrams above; double terry cushioning areas/region (32) on interior surface of sock includes pods of terry loops capped by other, longer terry loops; each cushioning pod includes a plurality of shorter terry loops capped by a longer terry loop yarn; Col. 7, lines 23-51; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and one or more of the plurality of discrete raised cushioning pods are spaced apart from each other by fabric having a thickness less than an average thickness of the plurality of discrete raised cushioning pods (See Abrams, Figs. 2-4 and Annotated Figs. 2 & 4 of Abrams above; fabric between designated pods has a first thickness that has thickness less than an average thickness of raised pods with a maximum thickness taken at the tallest part of the longer terry loops); and a plurality of mesh windows disposed on a region of an exterior surface of the cushioned performance sock (See annotated Fig. 2 of Abrams above; regions without double terry loops on sock body; knit structure of the sock forms a mesh structure having holes or spaces between knit courses; mesh regions on sock body are a knitted structure that forms a mesh structure having holes or spaces between knit courses which provide openings in the knit pattern, i.e., mesh windows on an exterior surface of the sock).
That said, although teaching mesh regions with openings, i.e., the mesh windows, Abrams is silent to wherein each mesh window of the plurality of mesh windows is offset from an interior surface of the cushioned performance sock by a plurality of yarn loops extending a width of each mesh window.
However, Mori, in a related sock art, is directed to a sock having a varied, knitted structure in order to provide strength, support, and ventilation at different parts of the sock where needed (See Mori, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Mori teaches wherein each mesh window of the plurality of mesh windows is offset from an interior surface of the cushioned performance sock by a plurality of yarn loops extending a width of each mesh window (See Mori, Fig. 8; portion of the sock interior includes mesh regions providing a base for short and long terry loops; the terry loops float and offset mesh fabric from an interior of the sock (i.e., terry loops are positioned between mesh fabric and interior; [0042]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form additional terry loops on the interior of the mesh regions of the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams as disclosed by Mori in order to achieve a cushioning effect and ventilation at the same time (See Mori, [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., in view of Mori, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) further teaches wherein each mesh window of the plurality of mesh windows comprises a floating mesh fabric formed within a knit structure of the cushioned performance sock (See Mori, Fig. 8; portion of the modified sock interior includes mesh regions providing a base for short and long terry loops; the terry loops float and offset mesh fabric from an interior of the sock (i.e., terry loops are positioned between mesh fabric and interior; [0042]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Mori, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gilbert.
Regarding claim 18, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., in view of Mori, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) is silent to one or more ribbed regions, wherein the one or more ribbed regions correspond to a region of the cushioned performance sock adjacent a toe area.
However, Gilbert, in a related sock art, is direct to a sock having a ribbed toe portion (See Gilbert, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Gilbert teaches one or more ribbed regions, wherein the one or more ribbed regions correspond to a region of the cushioned performance sock adjacent a toe area (See Gilbert, Fig. 2; ribbed region (5) is adjacent a toe area of sock; as applied to the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams, the ribbed region would be positioned at the toe end at least adjacent to another more interior area of the toe; Examiner notes that the term "area" is very broad and merely means "a section, portion, or part". (Defn. No. 3 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the toe end of the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams to have the ribbed construction disclosed by Gilbert in order to allow for improved stretching in the toe region and thereby reduce wear and tear and prevent the formation of holes (See Gilbert, page 1, line 110 – page 2, line 6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrams in view of Mori, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Barker.
Regarding claim 20, the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams (i.e., in view of Mori, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above) is silent to wherein the cushioning region includes a first portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a first density and a second portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a second density different from the first density.
However, Barker, in a related supportive sock art, is directed to an item of graduated compression hosiery comprising a panel adapted to provided targeted support on an interior of the hosiery at one or more sites of the wearer’s leg. Said panel includes a plurality of protrusions which may be formed by fluff fiber which are capable of proving cushioning as well as compressive support (See Barker, Figs. 1-2; abstract; [0016]). More specifically, Barker teaches wherein the cushioning region includes a first portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a first density and a second portion of the discrete raised cushioning pods having a second density different from the first density (See Barker, Fig. 1; a density of a first, center portion of the pad having a first number of protrusions is greater than a density of a second, outermost perimeter ring of the pad having a second, lesser number of protrusions; the pad is gradated from an outermost ring toward a center of the pad).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to apply the gradated fiber protrusion pattern disclosed by Barker to the cushioning regions of the modified cushioned performance sock of Abrams in order to provide concentrated or targeted support at the cushioned location (See Barker, [0011], [0020]-[0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 with respect to independent claims 1 and 16 and those dependent therefrom have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although Applicant indicated that claims 1 and 16 were amended to incorporate the features of allowable claims 9 and 15, respectively, Examiner notes that previously allowable claims 9 and 15 were not rewritten to include all of the limitations of the respective base claim(s) as previously presented. Instead, the claims were amended by Applicant to change the scope of the claims as set forth in the previous grounds of rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new, current grounds of rejection presented herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 19, as best can be understood, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) to the claims set forth in this Office action. Claims 11-15 depend from objected claim 10.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claim 4, 10, and 19 (claims 4 and 19 as best can be understood), Abrams, Mori, Gilbert, Shofner, and/or Barker are silent to individual loops of the plurality of capping looped strands of yarn extending completely over more than one of the plurality of terry loops in each raised cushioning pod. Abrams, the closest prior art, teaches capping loops; however, the overlying, taller terry loops of Abrams (i.e., the capping loops) do not extend completely over the underlying, shorter terry loops. Instead, the shorter terry loops are exposed on the sides (See annotated Fig. 4 of Abrams above). Claims 11-15 depend from claim 10. Regarding claim 9, Abrams, Mori, Gilbert, Shofner, and/or Barker are silent to differing distances between immediately adjacent discrete raised cushioning pods in a first and second portion.
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 MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732