DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed December 19, 2025 in which claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 14 are presented for examination and claims 5, 9, 11, and 13 are canceled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: Objection to the drawings for alleged illegibility of Figure 5 should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to Figure 5.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 5 as depicted on the Replacement Sheet filed December 19, 2025 remains insufficiently legible to be suitable for printing at issue at least because none of the text depicted is sufficiently clear to be discernable/readable. Likewise, the axes of the chart and the boxes depicted in the chart are excessively blurry. It is respectfully asserted that if the drawing objection to Figure 5 was withdrawn by the Examiner and in the event a Notice of Allowance was issued by the Examiner, Figure 5 as depicted in the Replacement Sheet filed December 19, 2025 would prevent issuance of the application by the USPTO Publication Branch. The objection is maintained (see below).
Applicant’s Second Argument: Objection to claims 9, 11, and 14 for minor informalities should be withdrawn at least in view of the cancelation of claims 9 and 11 and current amendments to claim 14.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 112(b) should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Fourth Argument: Rejection of the claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 over various cited references should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the limitations “a first wing portion extending from the rectangular portion toward both sides along a width direction” (lines 3-4) and “a second wing portion extending from the rectangular portion toward both sides along a direction perpendicular to the width direction in plan view” (lines 4-5). These limitations are objected to because it is it is unclear to what the phrase “both sides” refers (i.e., both sides of what?).
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the footwear item is for promoting falling asleep,” which should be amended to recite “wherein the sock is for promoting falling asleep.”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the footwear item has a cylindrical shape…,” which should be amended to recite “wherein the sock has a cylindrical shape…,”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the footwear item has a cylindrical shape with openings on both sides” (lines 1-2). This limitation is objected to because it is unclear to what the phrase “both sides” refers (i.e., both sides of what?). For further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that this limitation be amended to recite, for example, “wherein the sock has a cylindrical shape with each end of the cylindrical shape being open.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 5 filed December 19, 2025 is illegible.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 11,408,104 Dardinski et al.
To claim 1, Dardinski discloses a sock (30 or 130) (see Figures 1-6; col. 2, lines 40-53; col. 3, line 32 – col. 8, line 23; it is respectfully asserted that either of elements 30 or 130 can properly be considered a “sock”), comprising:
a heel covering portion (46) (see especially Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 3, lines 48-63); and
at least one raised portion (62d,82d) that protrudes toward at least one of an inner side and an outer side of the heel covering portion; wherein the at least one raised portion has a corner (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6),
the heel covering portion is formed with an inner knitted fabric layer (80) and an outer knitted fabric layer (60) (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6), and
the at least one raised portion is located between the inner knitted fabric layer and the outer knitted fabric layer (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6).
To claim 2, Dardinski further discloses a sock wherein the at least one raised portion has a polygonal shape (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6).
To claim 6, Dardinski further discloses a sock wherein the at least one raised portion includes a first protrusion portion (82d) that protrudes from the inner knitted fabric layer toward the outer knitted fabric layer, and a second protrusion portion (62d) that protrudes from the outer knitted fabric layer toward the inner knitted fabric layer and faces the first protrusion portion (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6).
To claim 7, Dardinski discloses a sock as structurally recited in claim 1. It is respectfully noted that the limitation “for promoting falling asleep” is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, sock 30/130 of Dardinski meets all the structural limitations as recited in claim 1 and would therefore be capable of performing the recited function of promoting falling asleep.
To claim 8, Dardinski further discloses a sock wherein the sock has a cylindrical shape with each end of the cylindrical shape being open (see especially Figures 3-4; col. 3, lines 32-47; col. 7, line 64 – col. 8, line 3; opening 32 at one end and opening 152/252 at the other end).
To claim 10, Dardinski further discloses a sock wherein the at least one raised portion includes a first protrusion portion (82d) that protrudes from the inner knitted fabric layer toward the outer knitted fabric layer, and a second protrusion portion (62d) that protrudes from the outer knitted fabric layer toward the inner knitted fabric layer and faces the first protrusion portion (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dardinski in view of USPN 12,232,564 Webster et al.
To claim 3, Dardinksi discloses a sock comprising at least one raised portion as recited in claims 1-2, above.
Dardinski does not expressly disclose a sock comprising at least one raised portion that has a cross shape in plan view.
However, Webster discloses a sock-like structure (100) (see Figures 1A-1C; col. 9, lines 24-39) comprising at least one raised portion that has a cross shape in plan view (see especially Figure 1C; col. 7, lines 14-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the at least one raised portion of Dardinski to include a raised portion that has a cross shape in plan view as taught by Webster because Webster teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for providing functional features such as strength and support for the heel covering portion (col. 7, lines 14-34; col. 8, lines 59-67).
To claim 4, (as best understood by Examiner) the modified invention of Dardinksi (i.e., Dardinski in view of Webster, as detailed above) further teaches a sock wherein the at least one raised portion includes a rectangular portion having a rectangular shape when seen in plan view, a first wing portion extending from the rectangular portion toward both sides along a width direction, and a second wing portion extending from the rectangular portion toward both sides along a direction perpendicular to the width direction in plan view, and an upper end surface of the rectangular portion is located at a higher position than an upper end surface of the first wing portion and an upper end surface of the second wing portion (see especially Figures 4-6 and col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6 of Dardinski; see especially Figure 1C and col. 7, lines 14-34 of Webster).
To claim 12, the modified invention of Dardinksi (i.e., Dardinski in view of Webster, as detailed above) further teaches a sock wherein the at least one raised portion includes a first protrusion portion (82d of Dardinski) that protrudes from the inner knitted fabric layer toward the outer knitted fabric layer, and a second protrusion portion (62d of Dardinski) that protrudes from the outer knitted fabric layer toward the inner knitted fabric layer and faces the first protrusion portion (see especially Figures 4-6 and col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6 of Dardinski).
To claim 14, the modified invention of Dardinksi (i.e., Dardinski in view of Webster, as detailed above) further teaches a sock wherein the at least one raised portion includes a first protrusion portion (82d of Dardinski) that protrudes from the inner knitted fabric layer toward the outer knitted fabric layer, and a second protrusion portion (62d of Dardinski) that protrudes from the outer knitted fabric layer toward the inner knitted fabric layer and faces the first protrusion portion (see especially Figures 4-6 and col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6 of Dardinski).
ALTERNATE REJECTION: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 2,586,045 Hoza in view of Dardinski.
To claim 1, Hoza discloses a sock (1) (see Figures 1-4; col. 2, lines 21-35), comprising: a heel covering portion (see Figure 1), wherein the heel covering portion is formed with a knitted fabric (col. 2, lines 21-27).
Hoza does not expressly disclose a sock further comprising at least one raised portion that protrudes toward at least one of an inner side and an outer side of the heel covering portion; wherein the at least one raised portion has a corner, the heel covering portion is formed with an inner knitted fabric layer and an outer knitted fabric layer, and the at least one raised portion is located between the inner knitted fabric layer and the outer knitted fabric layer.
However, Dardinski discloses a sock (30 or 130) (see Figures 1-6; col. 2, lines 40-53; col. 3, line 32 – col. 8, line 23; it is respectfully asserted that either of elements 30 or 130 can properly be considered a “sock”), comprising: a heel covering portion (46) (see especially Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 3, lines 48-63); and at least one raised portion (62d,82d) that protrudes toward at least one of an inner side and an outer side of the heel covering portion; wherein the at least one raised portion has a corner (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6), the heel covering portion is formed with an inner knitted fabric layer (80) and an outer knitted fabric layer (60) (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6), and the at least one raised portion is located between the inner knitted fabric layer and the outer knitted fabric layer (see especially Figures 4-6; col. 4, line 54 – col. 6, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sock of Hoza to include at least one raised portion as taught by Dardinksi because Dardinski teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides cushioning for the wearer (col. 6, lines 1-6).
This ALTERNATE REJECTION of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Hoza in view of Dardinski has been limited to independent claim 1 in the interest of brevity. It is respectfully noted however that Hoza in view of Dardinski may be relied upon to reject additional claim(s) in future office action(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional socks including a cross shape in plan view (see form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”).
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 GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732