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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A, and Species D in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated claims 1-16 as reading upon the elected invention.
Claims 12 and 15 are further withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Examiner notes that claim 12 appears directed to the non-elected species of Fig. 5B. Examiner also notes that the clasp of claim 15 is disclosed as an alternative structure to that of the elected species. Therefore, the claims are withdrawn. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 9, 2026.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are currently pending in this application with claims 12, 15, and 17-19 being withdrawn from further consideration. An action on the merits follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification at least at pages 1 and 17 (i.e., EP3429514B1) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested that each of the figure headings including a letter (e.g., “Fig. 2.b)”) have the unnecessary periods and parentheses removed (i.e., “Fig. 2B”)
Each of Figs. 8A-8C improperly show multiple views within a single and should be separately labeled or a relationship or order of assembly otherwise be shown
Fig. 9 includes reference characters that are too small to be clearly and easily discernible
Fig. 9 also includes apparent reference characters on the left side of the figure that do not have associated lead lines
Fig. 9 also includes at least one broken lead line seemingly associated with reference character 93 on the right side of the figure
It is suggested that Figs. 19B and 19D be spaced farther apart from one another to avoid confusion
Figs. 20A-20C include reference characters that are too small to be clearly and easily discernible and that also do not have associated lead lines
Figs. 21A-21C include reference characters that are too small to be clearly and easily discernible and that also do not have associated lead lines
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 – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to due to the presence of reference characters not placed between parentheses. It is suggested that the reference characters be removed from the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the brief description of the drawings at pages 17-19, it is suggested that each of the figure labels including a letter (e.g., “Fig. 2.b)”) have the unnecessary periods and parentheses removed (i.e., “Fig. 2B”) as discussed above. The figure labels should be similarly updated throughout the specification.
At pages 21-22, the included table should be properly labeled and referred to by the description
At page 28, referenced “Fig. 15” is not included in the drawings and should instead read “Figs. 15A-15C”
At page 29, referenced “Fig. 19” is not included in the drawings and should instead read “Figs. 19A-19D”
At page 30, referenced “Fig. 20” is not included in the drawings and should instead read “Figs. 20A-20C”
At page 31, referenced “Fig. 21” is not included in the drawings and should instead read “Figs. 21A-21C”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
In general, the preambles of each of claims 2-11 and 13-14 should instead read “The stocking” to properly refer back to the stocking introduced in independent claim 1 from which each claims depends.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). That said, claim 14 is objected to because the claim is separated from a dependent claim by a claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. See rejection of claim 14 under 112(b) below for additional discussion.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 1, “Stocking” should read “A stocking”
At line 3, “comes to lie” should read “is positioned”
Claim 2 is objected to because at line 3, “treads the ground” should read “treads on a ground surface”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference characters should be removed from the claim similar to the other claims
At line 3, “comes to lie” should read “is positioned”
Claim 6 is objected to because at lines 2-3, each instance of “for accommodating” should read “configured for accommodating”.
Claim 8 is objected to because the reference characters should be removed from the claim similar to the other claims.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3, “extends” should read “is configured to extend”
At line 4, “exerts” should read “is configured to exert”
Claim 14 is objected to because at line 4, “section” should read “sections”.
Claim 16 is objected to because at line 1 “Stocking” should read “A stocking”.
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 1-11, 13-14, and 16 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 1 does not include a clear transitional phrase (e.g., “comprising”,, “consisting of”, “consisting essentially of”, etc.) thereby making the scope of the claim unclear (See MPEP 2111.03). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the claim instead read “A stocking comprising: a foot part configured for accommodating a human foot […]”. 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 1 further recites the limitation “the foot” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the human foot”. 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 1 further recites the limitation “the inside of the stocking” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “an inside of the stocking”. 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 2 recites the limitations “the second to fourth metatarsals” and “the first to fifth metatarsals” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitations instead read “second to fourth metatarsals” and “first to fifth metatarsals”. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the metatarsophalangeal joints” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “metatarsophalangeal joints”. 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 3 further recites the limitation “the foot” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the human foot”. 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 4 recites the limitation “a second height arranged in an island shape” at line 3. It is unclear how a height can be arranged in an island shape. Furthermore, “an island shape” is unclear as the shape of an island can vary widely from island to island. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a second height having a shape” or otherwise clearly define what is intended by “an island shape”. 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 5 recites the limitation “a material with a Shore hardness in the range of 0 to 50, in particular with a Shore hardness in the range of 4 to 8” at lines 2-3. It is unclear what value is intended as no particular Shore hardness scale (e.g., A, D, 00, etc.) is reference or disclosed in Applicant’s application as originally filed. Furthermore, due to the use of the phrase “in particular”, it is unclear if the more specific range is necessarily required or not or if it is optional. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the phrase “in particular” instead read “optionally”. That said, due to a lack of disclosure of a particular Shore hardness scale by Applicant in the application as originally filed, it is suggested that the limitation and the claim as a whole be canceled. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the limitation following the phrase “in particular” is optional when applying prior art.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the toes” and “the heels” at lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitations instead read “toes of the human foot” and “a heel of the human foot”, respectively. 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 7 recites the limitations “the heel” and “the foot” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitations instead read “a heel of the human foot” and “the human foot”, respectively. 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 9 recites the limitation “it comes to lie” at line 3. It is unclear to which structure “it” is meant to refer in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the forefoot padding is positioned”. 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 9 further recites the limitation “the metatarsophalangeal joints” and “the foot” at lines 3 and 4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitations instead read “metatarsophalangeal joints” and “the human foot”, respectively. 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 10 recites the limitation “the midfoot” multiple times at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitations instead read “a midfoot of the human foot” and “the midfoot of the human foot”, respectively. 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 10 further recites the limitation “the remaining foot part” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a remaining portion of the foot part”. 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 10 further recites the limitation “the foot” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the human foot”. 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 11 recites the limitation “the region of the foot instep” at lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a region configured to correspond to an instep of the human foot”. 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. See 101 rejection below for additional discussion.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the tensile element” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if claim 14 is meant to refer to claim 10 in which a tensile element is first introduced instead of claim 8 from which is currently depends. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that claim 14 instead be made to depend from claim 10. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein claim 14 instead depends from claim 10 when applying prior art.
Claim 14 further recites the limitation “a first section having less extensibility than the rest of the foot part and comprises a second elastic section […] wherein the first and the second section together form a closed ring” at lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rest of the foot part” in the claim. It is further unclear what structure comprises the second elastic section. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a first section and a second elastic section […] the first section having less extensibility than a remaining portion of the foot part, wherein the first section and the second elastic section together form a closed ring”. 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 16 does not include a clear transitional phrase (e.g., “comprising”,, “consisting of”, “consisting essentially of”, etc.) thereby making the scope of the claim unclear (See MPEP 2111.03). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the claim instead read “A stocking comprising: a foot part configured for accommodating a human foot […]”. 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 16 further recites the limitations “the region of the forefoot” at lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead recite “a forefoot region of the stocking”. 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.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
An effort has been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections may not be conclusive, and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
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 11 and 16, as best can be understood, 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 11 recites the limitation “converge in a cross shape in the region of the foot instep” at lines 3-4. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a region configured to correspond to an in step of the human foot”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the region of the forefoot” at lines 2-3. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a forefoot region of the stocking”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 16, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 1,659,171 to Spafford (hereinafter, “Spafford”).
Regarding claim 1, Spafford teaches a stocking with a foot part for accommodating a human foot (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; sock (5) having foot part capable of accommodating a human foot; Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein a support element is positioned on a sole area of the foot part in such a way that the support element comes to lie at least under one of the metatarsals when the stocking is worn on the foot (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; pad (12) positioned on sole area of foot part of sock (5); pad (12) is capable of being positioned under hypothetical metatarsals of a hypothetical wearer when sock (5) is worn), wherein the support element has a curvature facing towards the inside of the stocking (See Spafford, Fig. 3; pad (12) has a curvature facing towards the inside of sock (5)).
Regarding claim 3, Spafford (i.e., as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the support element is designed and positioned in such a way that the support element comes to lie behind the metatarsophalangeal joints when the stocking is worn on the foot (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; pad (12) is capable of being positioned behind hypothetical metatarsophalangeal joints of a hypothetical foot when sock (5) is worn).
Regarding claim 4, Spafford (i.e., as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the support element comprises a first area with a first height and a second area with a second height arranged in an island shape in the first area or at an edge of the first area, wherein the second height exceeds the first height by a factor of two (See Spafford, Fig. 3; pad (12) includes first area near edge of pad (12) having a first, near-zero height and a second area to the tallest part of pad (12) having a second height that exceeds the first height by at least a factor of two; 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Spafford (i.e., as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the stocking has a one-piece or multi-piece padding on the sole area (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; fabric piece (11) in sole area of sock (5) provided at least some amount of padding).
Regarding claim 9, Spafford (i.e., as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8 above) further teaches wherein at least a part of the padding is formed as forefoot padding, wherein the forefoot padding is arranged at the sole area in such a way that it comes to lie under the metatarsophalangeal joints when the stocking is worn on the foot (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; at least a front part of pad (12) in sole area of sock (5) is forefoot padding that is capable of being positioned under hypothetical metatarsophalangeal joints of a hypothetical foot when sock (5) is worn).
Regarding claim 16, Spafford teaches a stocking with a foot part for accommodating a human foot (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; sock (5) having foot part capable of accommodating a human foot; Examiner notes that the term "part" is very broad and merely means "a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), wherein a pad is attached to a sole area of the foot part in the region of the forefoot (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; pad (12) positioned on and attached to sole area of foot part of sock (5) in a forefoot region of sock (5); 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 6-7, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spafford, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 2,863,231 to Jones (hereinafter, “Jones”).
Regarding claim 2, although Spafford (i.e., as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) teaches a support element, Spafford is silent to wherein the support element is designed and positioned such that the second to fourth metatarsals are raised relative to the first and fifth metatarsals when a wearer of the stocking treads the ground.
However, Jones, in a related foot support structure, is directed to a insole having raised support elements for supporting the bottom of a foot of a wearer (See Jones, Figs. 1-7). More specifically, Jones teaches wherein the support element is designed and positioned such that the second to fourth metatarsals are raised relative to the first and fifth metatarsals when a wearer of the stocking treads the ground (See Jones, Figs. 1-7; pad (17) is capable of being positioned to raise hypothetical second to fourth metatarsals relative to hypothetical firs and fifth metatarsals of a hypothetical wearer’s foot).
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 substitute the cushioning support arrangement disclosed by Jones for the support arrangement of Spafford for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to providing targeted support across areas of a wearer’s foot where the weight of the wearer’s body tends to be directed (See Jones, Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 52 and page 2 , line 70 – Col. 3, line 2).
Regarding claim 6, Spafford (i.e., as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein a length of the sole area is defined from a first end for accommodating the toes to a second end for accommodating the heel, wherein a width of the sole area is defined perpendicular to the length and parallel to the sole area (See Spafford, Figs. 1-3; sole area of sock (5) includes first end and second capable of accommodating hypothetical toes and a hypothetical heel of a hypothetical wearer, respectively, the sole area having a width and length as claimed).
That said, Spafford is silent to wherein the support element is centered with respect to the width and aligned with respect to the length to a position at a distance of 2/5 of the length from the first end and 3/5 of the length from the second end.
However, Jones, in a related foot support structure, is directed to a insole having raised support elements for supporting the bottom of a foot of a wearer (See Jones, Figs. 1-7). More specifically, Jones teaches wherein the support element is centered with respect to the width and aligned with respect to the length to a position at a distance of 2/5 of the length from the first end and 3/5 of the length from the second end (See annotated Fig. 3 of Jones below; pad (17) is centered in a width direction and aligned in a length direction to a position 2/5 of the length from the toe end and 3/5 of the length from the heel end).
PNG
media_image1.png
207
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Jones
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 substitute the cushioning support arrangement disclosed by Jones for the support arrangement of Spafford for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to providing targeted support across areas of a wearer’s foot where the weight of the wearer’s body tends to be directed (See Jones, Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 52 and page 2 , line 70 – Col. 3, line 2).
Regarding claim 7, Spafford (i.e., as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the support element has a teardrop shape when viewed perpendicular to the sole area, wherein the teardrop shape is oriented such that a tapering area of the teardrop shape faces towards the heel when the stocking is worn on the foot.
However, Jones, in a related foot support structure, is directed to a insole having raised support elements for supporting the bottom of a foot of a wearer (See Jones, Figs. 1-7). More specifically, Jones teaches wherein the support element has a teardrop shape when viewed perpendicular to the sole area, wherein the teardrop shape is oriented such that a tapering area of the teardrop shape faces towards the heel when the stocking is worn on the foot (See Jones, Fig. 3; pad (17) has a teardrop shape that tapers toward a heel end of the footwear when viewed perpendicular to the top surface, i.e., Fig. 3).
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 substitute the cushioning support arrangement disclosed by Jones for the support arrangement of Spafford for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to providing targeted support across areas of a wearer’s foot where the weight of the wearer’s body tends to be directed (See Jones, Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 52 and page 2 , line 70 – Col. 3, line 2).
Claim 5, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spafford, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0232129 to Roberts et al. (hereinafter, “Roberts”).
Regarding claim 5, Spafford (i.e., as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the support element consists of a material with a Shore hardness in the range 0 to 50, in particular with a Shore hardness in the range 4 to 8.
However, Roberts, in a related foot supporting pad art, is directed to a foot pad positionable under a ball region of a wearer’s foot (See Roberts, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Roberts teaches wherein the support element consists of a material with a Shore hardness in the range 0 to 50, in particular with a Shore hardness in the range 4 to 8 (See Roberts, Fig. 1; pad (1) may be formed of a material having a Shore A hardness of about 7; [0068]).
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 support element of Spafford from the material having the hardness value disclosed by Roberts for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing a pad with sufficient cushioning for high comfort and protection that can sustain long and repeated use (See Roberts, [0011]-[0013], [0068]).
Claims 10-11 and 13-14, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spafford, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0346185 to Bushby (hereinafter, “Bushby”).
Regarding claim 10, Spafford (i.e., as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the foot part of the stocking comprises a tensile element which is arranged on the foot part or incorporated into the foot part such that the tensile element extends around the midfoot and exerts a contracting force on the midfoot which is greater than a contracting force of the remaining foot part when the stocking is worn on the foot.
However, Bushby, in a related supportive footwear art, is directed to a strap support system for supporting a wearer’s foot, the system being wearable with a sock (See Bushby, Figs. 15-18; abstract; [0126]). More specifically, Bushby teaches wherein the foot part of the stocking comprises a tensile element which is arranged on the foot part or incorporated into the foot part such that the tensile element extends around the midfoot and exerts a contracting force on the midfoot which is greater than a contracting force of the remaining foot part when the stocking is worn on the foot (See Bushby, Figs. 15-18; strap system is formed of a stretch resistant material positionable on a foot part of a sock and capable of extending around a hypothetical midfoot and exerting a contracting force on the hypothetical midfoot greater than that of the sock; [0088]-[0089], [0112], [0126]; giving importance to the term “or” in the claim, the prior art meets at least one of the listed alternative limitations and, therefore, meets the limitations of the claim).
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 include the tensile support strap system disclosed by Bushby inside the sock of Spafford for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing anatomical support to a bottom of a wearer’s sole, arch, and plantar fascia for treating and/or preventing injury (See Bushby, [0019]-[0021], [0112]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified stocking of Spafford (i.e., Spafford in view of Bushby as discussed with respect to claim 10 above) further teaches wherein the tensile element comprises band-shaped sections which converge in a cross shape in the sole area or which run parallel in the sole area or which converge in a cross shape in the region of the foot instep (See Bushby, Figs. 15-18; strap system includes band-shaped sections which converge in a cross shape in the sole area; giving importance to the term “or” in the claim, the prior art meets at least one of the listed alternative limitations and, therefore, meets the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 13, the modified stocking of Spafford (i.e., Spafford in view of Bushby as discussed with respect to claim 10 above) further teaches wherein the tensile element is topologically doubly connected (See Bushby, Figs. 15-18; strap system is topologically doubly connected as defined by Applicant, i.e. forming a circular ring, inasmuch as the tensile element of Applicant’s invention).
Regarding claim 14, the modified stocking of Spafford (i.e., Spafford in view of Bushby as discussed with respect to claim 10 above; Examiner’s note: see rejection under 112(b) above for additional discussion on claim interpretation and dependency) further teaches wherein the tensile element comprises a first section along a circumference extending around the foot part having less extensibility than the rest of the foot part and comprises a second elastic section, wherein the first and the second section together form a closed ring (See Bushby, Figs. 15-18; strap system includes first and second ends (582, 586) formed of a stretch resistant material having at least some amount of elasticity inside of the modified stocking, the first and second ends (582, 586) form a closed ring with sole portion (502); Examiner notes that the term "section" is very broad and merely means "one of several components; a piece" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0100927 to Eugene et al.; USPN 4,603,698 to Cherniak; USPN 10,888,128 to Anderson; US 2012/0180195 to Shull et al.; and USPN 1,098,397 to Pecorella are each direction to foot support articles and/or support elements/pads for supporting a sole of a user’s foot.
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
Prosecution Insights