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 .
Drawings
Black and white photographs are not ordinarily accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Photographs--
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g. immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
In the instant case, photographs are not the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention. Further, the photographs are not of sufficient quality so that all the details are clear and reproduceable. New black and white line drawings are requested.
The drawings are objected to because figure 2 is supposed to be a cross sectional view taken along line II-II (figure 4?), but appears to be a bottom view. 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.
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 second anti slip portion formed on the outside and/or inside surfaces (multiple surfaces not shown, claim 2), a thickness of the second anti-slip portion is larger than a thickness of the first anti-slip portion (claim 3), the thickness of the bottom of the sock is larger in a portion having the second anti-slip portion formed thereon than in a periphery of the portion (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para 0010 states Figure 2: is a cross-sectional view of the sock in accordance with Embodiment 1, viewed along arrows II-II (which is shown in figure 4). Figure 2 does not appear to be a cross sectional view as indicated, but rather a bottom view of the sock. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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, recites the language “and/or an inside surface that is a reverse side surface of the outside surface of the bottom of the sock” and “and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 2 recites “surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 2 recites “a second anti-slip portion formed on the outside and/or inside”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the" with respect to a thickness of the bottom. A thickness of a bottom of the sock has not been positively recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 4 recites “a third anti-slip portion formed on the outside and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 5 recites “a fourth anti-slip portion formed on the outside and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 6 recites ““surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 6 recites “and/or an inside surface”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 9 recites,
“a tiptoe part at a tip of the sock is formed:
in a round-end configuration to cover the wearer's toes all together, including a big toe, a second toe, a third toe, a fourth toe, and a fifth toe;
in a Japanese socks configuration to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe apart from a group of the second, third, fourth, and fifth toes;
in a four-pronged configuration to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, and a group of the fourth and fifth toes apart from one another;
or in a five-toe configuration to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe apart from one another.”
It is unclear how the tiptoe part of the sock can be all of the following at the same time – in a round-end configuration, in a Japanese socks configuration, in a four-pronged configuration”. Further, the five-toe configuration is presented after the phrase “or”, as currently presented the claims requires the tiptoe part of the sock to be all of the first three configurations (round-end, Japanese, four pronged”) or a “five-toe configuration”. It appears that applicant has intended to tiptoe part of the sock to be any one of the configurations, since there is no support for all of the configurations to be combined and the claim as been construed to mean any one of the tip toe configuration recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 10 recites “the anti-slip portion furth includes anti-slip portion for the round-end configuration being formed in a single region on the outside and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 11 recites “surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 11 recites “formed in two regions on the outside and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 12 recites “surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 12 recites “formed in four regions on the outside and /or inside surface(s)”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
Claim 13 recites “surface(s)” it is unclear if applicant is reciting that the inside is both a single surface, or multiple surfaces? Or does the (s) mean that the each of the inside and outside surface? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 13 recites “formed in five regions on the outside and /or inside surface(s)”. It is unclear what is required in the claim. Are both elements required? Is only one surface required? It is unclear if both/ore one of the surfaces must be present in the combination.
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 1-13 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 1 recites “along an orientation of an aponeurosis plantaris”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “along an orientation of ligamentum plantare longum of the sole”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “along an orientation of a ligamentum metatarsale transversum surperficiale of the sole”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “in such a way to sandwich an ossa sesamoidea position corresponding to an ossa sesamoidea of a big toe of the wearer in a front and rear direction of the sock”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “corresponding to a plantar arch of the sole”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “corresponding to a retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis and a retinaculum musculorum peroneorum inferius, respectively, of the wearer’s foot”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “corresponding to a route which extends from the retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis of the wearer’s foot via an upside of a malleoulus lateralis of the wearer’s foot, winds around an outside of a head of an Achilles tendon of the wearer, and returns to the retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis via an upside of a medial malleolus of the wearer’s foot”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites “including all of the regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 11 recites “a single region, including all of the regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites “including in a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a regions corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe, and a single region including regions respectively corresponding to ball portion of the fourth and the fifth toe”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 13 recites “including in a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a regions corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fourth toe and a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fifth toe”. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required. This is a positive recitation of human anatomy. Appropriate correction required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2024/0358092). The device of Lee teaches,
With respect to claim 1, as best understood, a sock (100) comprising:
an anti-slip part(112) on an outside surface of a bottom of a sock (Figure 3) to be in contact with a sole of a wearer when the wearer wears the sock; it is noted that language “to be in contact with a sole of a wearer” is functional. The prior art teaches anti slip parts on the bottom of a foot so that it would be in contact with a sole and therefore meets the claim, see MPEP 2114. With respect to the language “and/or an inside surface that is a reverse-side surface of the outside surface of the bottom of the sock, “ is not currently required by the claim.
wherein the anti-slip part (112) includes a first anti-slip (200, distinct element formed in groupings at the central area, near reference character 112) portion formed on the outside surface (Figure 3) of the bottom of the sock along an orientation of an aponeurosis plantaris. The anti-slip portion is capable for use to cover an aponeurosis plantaris. It is noted that the position of the sock with relation to human anatomy would depend on the size/shape of the human anatomy. The prior art is in an area that is capable of being positioned over a person’s aponeurosis plantaris and therefore meets the language as currently recited, see MPEP 2114.
Further, it is noted that the language “ and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock “ along an orientation of an aponeurosis plantaris is not currently required by the claim.
With respect to claim 2, as best understood, wherein the anti-slip part (112) further includes a second anti-slip portion (202; figure 3 -4 ) portions near formed on the outside (Figure 2) of the bottom of the sock (figure 2) along an orientation of a ligamentum plantare longum of the sole. The anti-slip portion is capable for use to cover along an orientation of a ligamentum plantare longum of the sole. It is noted that the position of the sock with relation to human anatomy would depend on the size/shape of the human anatomy. The prior art is in an area that is capable of being positioned over aa ligamentum plantare longum of the sole and therefore meets the language as currently recited, see MPEP 2114.
It is noted that the language “and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock along an orientation of a ligamentum plantare longum of the sole”” is not currently required by the claim.
With respect to claim 3, wherein a thickness of the second anti-slip portion is larger than a thickness of the first anti-slip portion, or the thickness of the bottom of the sock is larger in a portion having the second anti-slip portion formed thereon than in a periphery of the portion (para 0009, 00012).
With respect to claim 4, wherein the anti-slip part (112) further includes a third anti-slip portion (202, area on element 304; figure 3) on the outside surface of the bottom of the sock (figure 3) and capable of being positioned along an orientation of a ligamentum metatarsale transversum superficiale of the sole. It is noted that the position of the sock with relation to human anatomy would depend on the size/shape of the human anatomy. The prior art is in an area that is capable of being positioned over a ligamentum metatasale transversum superficiale of the sole and therefore meets the language as currently recited, see MPEP 2114.
It is noted that the language and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock along an ligamentum metatarsale transversum superficiale of the sole” is not currently required by the claim.
With respect to claim 5, wherein the anti-slip part (112) further includes a fourth anti-slip portion (see 200, and element 202 directly below the toe area shown in figure 4) formed on the outside of the bottom of the sock in such a way as to sandwich an ossa sesamoidea position corresponding to an ossa sesamoidea of a big toe of the wearer in a front and rear direction of the sock (Figure 4). The prior art teaches a portion of anti-slip material having space between them such that they would be capable for use to sandwich an ossa sesamoidea position corresponding to an ossa sesamoidea of a big toe of the wearer in a front and rear direction of the sock as recited in the claim. It is noted that the devices position for use with respect to human anatomy would depends on the size/shape of the anatomy. The prior art is capable of being used to be positioned in the manner recited and therefore meets the claim.
It is noted that the language “and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock in such a way as to sandwich an ossa sesamoidea position corresponding to an ossa sesamoidea of a big toe of the wearer in a front and rear direction of the sock” is not currently required by the claim.
With respect to claim 6, on the outside surface of the bottom of the sock, an anti-slip part unformed region (102) having no anti-slip part formed therein (see spaces free of the anti-slop material 112) in a region corresponding to a plantar arch of the sole. The area free of the anti-slip material, forming the anti-slip unformed region is capable of being positioned on a human body such that it would cover at least a region corresponding to a person’s plantar arch of the sole, and therefore meets the claim. It is noted that the devices position for use with respect to human anatomy would depends on the size/shape of the anatomy. The prior art is capable of being used in the manner recited and therefore meets the claim. MPEP 2114,
With respect to claim 9, as best understood, wherein a tiptoe part at a tip of the sock is formed:
in a round-end configuration (Figure 3) to cover the wearer's toes all together, including a big toe, a second toe, a third toe, a fourth toe, and a fifth toe. It is noted that “to cover the wearers toes all together, including a big toe, a second toe, a third toe, a fourth toe, and a fifth toe” is a functional recitation. If the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, then it meets the claim, MPEP 2114. The prior art teaches a single pocket (Figure 3) capable of covering all five toes at the same time.;
in a Japanese socks configuration (Figure 4) to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe apart from a group of the second, third, fourth, and fifth toes. The language “to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe apart from a group of the second, third, fourth, and fifth toes” is a functional recitation. The prior art teaches a pocket (Figure 4) capable for uses to keep the big toe apart from the other groups of second , third, fourth and fifth toes and therefore meets eh claim (Figure 4), see MPEP 2114;
in a four-pronged configuration to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, and a group of the fourth and fifth toes apart from one another;
or in a five-toe configuration (Para 00047) to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe apart from one another. The language “to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe apart from one another” is a functional recitation. The device of Lee teaches five individual pockets capable for covering each of the five toes individually (para 0047) and therefore meets the claim language, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 10, wherein a tiptoe part at a tip of the sock is formed in a round-end configuration (Figure 3) to cover the wearer's toes all together, including a big toe, a second toe, a third toe, a fourth toe, and a fifth toe. The language “to cover the wearer's toes all together, including a big toe, a second toe, a third toe, a fourth toe, and a fifth toe” is functional. The prior art teaches a single pocket in a round end (Figure 3) that covers all five toes, and therefore meets the functional language as recited. MPEP 2114. The anti-slip (112) part further includes an anti-slip portion for the round-end configuration (Figure 3), the anti-slip portion (202) for the round-end configuration being formed in a single region on the outside surface of the bottom of the sock (figure 3), including all of the regions (areas that are capable of covering the balls portions of a person toes ) respectively corresponding to ball portions of the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe (Figure 3). The language “ and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock, including all of the regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe” is not currently required by the claim.
Further it is noted that the single region is capable for use in corresponding to ball portions of the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe, is met by the prior art since the position and fit of the sock on a user would be dependent on the size/shape/anatomy of the user. The prior art is capable of corresponding to ball portions of a human foot as claimed and therefore meets the claim. MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 11, wherein a tiptoe part at a tip of the sock is formed in a Japanese-socks configuration (Figure 4) to cover the wearer's toes, keeping a big toe apart from a group of the second, third, fourth, and fifth toes. It is noted the language “to cover the wearer's toes, keeping a big toe apart from a group of the second, third, fourth, and fifth toes” is functional. The prior art teaches a big toe pocket (figure 4) and another pocket for the remaining four toes (figure 4) and therefore would be capable to cover the toes keeping the big toe apart from a group of the second, third, fourth and fifth toes” as functionally recited by the claim. See MPEP 2114.
the anti-slip part (112) further includes anti-slip portions (200, 202) for the Japanese socks configuration, the anti-slip portions for the Japanese socks configuration being respectively formed in two regions (200, 202) on the outside surface of the bottom of the sock (Figure 4), and is capable for use such that a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe and a single region including all of the regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe. The claims as currently recited to not required the language “and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock, including a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe and a single region including all of the regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe”.
Further the language such that a region is capable for use in corresponding to ball portions of the big toe, and a single region including all of region respectively corresponding to ball of the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe, is met by the prior art since the position and fit of the sock on a user would be dependent on the size/shape/anatomy of the user. The prior art is capable of corresponding to a human foot to cover the regions as claimed and therefore meets the claim. MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 12, a wherein a tiptoe part at a tip of the sock (figure 4) is formed in a four-pronged (104, 106, 302, 304) configuration (para 0047; 104, 106, 302, 304) to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, and a group of the fourth and fifth toes apart from one another (para 0047). The language “to cover the wearer's toes, keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, and a group of the fourth and fifth toes apart from one another” is functional. The prior art teaches a four pronged configuration (104, 106, 302, 304) and uses comprising language which does not limit the presence of an extra prong, that is capable for use to keep the big toe, second toe, and third toe together (in their own pockets) and a group of fourth and fifth toes (in a pocket together) apart from one another (para 0047)
the anti-slip part (112) further includes anti-slip portions (212, at 104, 106, 302, 304; para 0047) for the four-pronged configuration, the anti-slip portions for the four-pronged configuration being respectively formed in four regions (para 0047) on the outside surface of the bottom of the sock (figure 3) including a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe (104), a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe (106) , a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe (302), and a single region (320) including regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the fourth toe and the fifth toe. The prior art is capable of covering the human foot in the manner recited, such that a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe (104), a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe (106) , a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe (302), and a single region (320) including regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the fourth toe and the fifth toe, since the prior art is capable of being positioned on a human foot having the toes inserted into the pockets of the sock as recited. It is noted that the fit and position of the sock on a human foot would depend on the size/shape and anatomy of the human foot. The prior art has a four prong pocket sock that is capable of being positioned on a human foot in the manner recited an therefore meets the claim. See MPEP 2114.
. The language “ and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock, including a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe, and a single region including regions respectively corresponding to ball portions of the fourth toe and the fifth toe,” is not currently required by the claim.
With respect to claim 13, wherein a tiptoe part at a tip of the sock is formed in a five-toe configuration to cover the wearer's toes (para 0047), keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe apart from one another (para 0037). The language “to cover the wearer's toes (para 0047), keeping the big toe, the second toe, the third toe, the fourth toe, and the fifth toe apart from one another” is functional. The device of Lee teaches individual toe pockets capable for use to cover the toes as recited, and therefore meets the functional language as required by the claim. See MPEP 2114.
the anti-slip (112) part further includes anti-slip portions for the five-toe configuration, the anti-slip portions (at 104, 106, 302, 304, 306) for the five-toe configuration (para 0047) being respectively formed in five regions on the outside surface of the bottom of the sock (Figure 3), including a region that is capable for use to be corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fourth toe, and a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fifth toe (Figure 3). The language “and/or inside surface(s) of the bottom of the sock, including a region corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fourth toe, and a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fifth toe” as currently presented is not required by the claim.
Further the language such a region that is capable for use to be corresponding to a ball portion of the big toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the second toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the third toe, a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fourth toe, and a region corresponding to a ball portion of the fifth toe, is met by the prior art since the position and fit of the sock on a user would be dependent on the size/shape/anatomy of the user. The prior art is capable of corresponding to a human foot to cover the regions as claimed and therefore meets the claim. MPEP 2114.
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.
Claim(s) 7 -8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yokoyama (2003/0230121). The device of Lee substantially discloses the claimed invention but is lacking a first and second taping knitting part.
The device of Yokoyama teaches,
With respect to claim 7, comprising a first (7b) taping knitting part (7b;para 0012) ) formed by taping knitting (para 0012) of a region corresponding to a retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis and a retinaculum musculorum peroneorum inferius, respectively, of the wearer's foot. The language “formed by taping knitting’ is a product by process recitation, if the prior art is capable of being formed by the claimed process then it meets the claim. MPEP 2113. The prior art is a knit having taping area (para 0012) that is capable of being formed by taping knitting and therefore meets the claim.
It is noted that the prior art has a tapping knitting region that is capable for use to be positioned on a human user such that it has “a region corresponding to a retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis and a retinaculum musculorum peroneorum inferius, respectively, of the wearer's foot”. The position of the device of on the human body, would depend on the size/shape of the person and the prior art is capable of being positioned in the manner recited (Figure 2). See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 8, comprising a second (7a) taping knitting (para 0012) part formed by taping knitting (para 0012) and extending from the first taping knitting part (7b). The language “formed by taping knitting’ is a product by process recitation, if the prior art is capable of being formed by the claimed process then it meets the claim. MPEP 2113. The prior art is a knit having taping area (para 0012) that is capable of being formed by taping knitting and therefore meets the claim.
wherein the second taping knitting part (7a) is formed in a region corresponding to a route which extends from the retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis of the wearer's foot via an upside of a malleolus lateralis of the wearer's foot, winds around an outside of a head of an Achilles tendon of the wearer, and returns to the retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis via an upside of a medial malleolus of the wearer's foot (figures 1 and 2). The prior art teaches first and second taping parts (7a and 7b) that extend over the foot around the back of the foot, and extend around to be in a location under the foot (Figures 1 and 2), and therefore the device is capable of being positioned in a region corresponding to a route which extends from the retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis of the wearer's foot via an upside of a malleolus lateralis of the wearer's foot, winds around an outside of a head of an Achilles tendon of the wearer, and returns to the retinaculum musculorum extensorum inferius pedis via an upside of a medial malleolus of the wearer's foot, as recited. The position of the device of on the human body, would depend on the size/shape of the person and the prior art is capable of being positioned in the manner recited (Figure 2). See MPEP 2114.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the taping knitting portions taught by Yokoyama inn order to provide improved support to the users foot/ankle during strenuous activities (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights