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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-11, 13 and 15-16 are currently pending in the application. Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 02/03/2026.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification, in para. 0030, states:
…However, the top-side portion of the integrally-knitted Toe Lock loop (that faces the sky, or upwardly) encircles around the five toes: (a) it covers and touches only the side (not the top, not the bottom) of the Great Toe, or it covers and touches only the side (not the top, not the bottom) of the Distal Phalanx of the Great Toe and the Proximal Phalanx of the Great Toe, and it does not touch and does not cover the First Metatarsal bone; then, (b) it continues by covering and touching only the front-side of the three middle toes (the second, the third, and the fourth toes) or of the three Middle Phalanx bones, or by covering only the top-side above the three middle toes or above the three Middle Phalanx bones, and it does not touch and does not cover the second and third and fourth lesser Metatarsal bones; then, (c) it covers and touches only the side (not the top, not the bottom) of the smallest (fifth) Toe, or it covers and touches only the side (not the top, not the bottom) of the Fifth Phalanx (the smallest Phalanx bone), and it does not touch and does not cover the smallest lesser (fifth) Metatarsal bone….
The above description is self-contradictory. As the "top-side portion" is defined to be "faces the sky, or upwardly", how can the top-side portion of the sock cover and touch "only the side (not the top)" or "only the front side" of the toes? The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
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, 3-11, 13 and 15-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the bottom-side portion of the loop is configured to be located between a metatarsal bone and/or a proximal phalanx bone of the human user", which renders the claim indefinite. The claimed subject matter is unclear because the phrase "between… and/or…" appears to be incorrect. The term "between" should be followed by at least two items, and it is unclear what "between…or…" is referring to. For examination purposes, based on the original disclosure, "between" has been construed to be "beneath".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top-side portion of the loop is configured to touch only a side of a great toe of the user and only the front-side of three middle toes of the user and only a side of a smallest toe of the user", which renders the claim indefinite. A "top-side" portion, by definition is a portion on a top side of the sock. It is unclear how a top-side portion is configured to touch only a side or only the front-side of the toes. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the "top-side portion" as a portion of the loop extending in front and lateral sides of the sock.
Claims 3, 4, 5 each recite the limitation "a first yarn", which renders the claim indefinite. The claims each depend from claim 1, and claim 1 has already defined "a first yarn". It is unclear the limitation is referring to the same yarn in claim 1 or a different yarn. Consequently, it is also unclear which yarn is being referred to by "the first yarn" and/or "said first yarn" in the claims. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 3 and 5 each recite the limitation "the knitted toes-region stabilizing component is a knitted band that is formed of a first blend of yarns which comprises a first yarn", which renders the claims indefinite. Claims 3 and 5 each depend from claim 1, and claim 1 has set forth "the toes-region stabilizing component is formed of a first yarn". The scope of "a first blend of yarns which comprises a first yarn" is different from "a first yarn". It is noted that the transitional phrase "formed of" is closed-ended, similar to "composed of" and "consisting of". See MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, claims 3 and 5 each conflict with claim 1 with respect to the composition of the knitted toes-region stabilizing component.
Claims 3 and 5 each recite the limitation "the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and the knitted sole-covering fabric-region are knitted of a second blend of yarns", which renders the claims indefinite due to a similar reason as discussed above. Claim 1 has set forth "the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and the knitted sole-covering fabric-region are knitted of a second yarn". The scope of "a second blend of yarns" is different from "a second yarn". See MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, claim 3 conflicts with claim 1 with respect to the composition of the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and the knitted sole-covering fabric-region.
Claims 3 and 5 each recite the limitation "and which excludes said first yarn", which renders the claims indefinite. The claim has previously defined a plurality of items. It is unclear what item is being referred to by "which". The second blend of yarns? The first blend of yarns? Any other item? For all the above issues discussed for claims 3 and 5, no reasonable interpretation can be made for claims 3 and 5; therefore, no prior art rejections are attempted to claims 3 and 5 in this Office action.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a second yarn", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim depends from claim 1, and claim 1 has already defined "a second yarn". It is unclear the limitation is referring to the same yarn in claim 1 or a different yarn. Consequently, it is also unclear which yarn is being referred to by "the second yarn" in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "form a continuous and seamless knitted garment that excludes any seams", which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation lacks a subject before the word "form" and it is unclear which item is being referred to. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the knitted toes-region stabilizing component, the knitted toes-covering region, and the knitted sole-covering region form a continuous and seamless knitted garment that excludes any seams.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said first". It is unclear what is being referred to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "said first yarn".
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazit (US 2020/0221791 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gazit discloses a sock (sock 100; figs. 1-5; paras. 0029-0030; claim 1) for covering at least a foot of a human wearer (figs. 1-5), the sock comprising:
a knitted toes-covering fabric-region (dorsal toe area 330 formed of non-grip yarn; figs. 1-3; para. 0036), configured to cover toes of the foot (figs. 1-3; para. 0036);
a knitted sole-covering fabric-region (a region formed by knitted stripes between grip strips and formed of non-grip yarn; see annotated fig. 2; para. 0022), configured to cover a sole of the foot (see annotated fig. 2);
a knitted toes-region stabilizing component (a plantar toe area 412 connected with a grip strip loop 312 and formed of grip yarn; see fig. 3 and annotated fig. 2; paras. 0020, 0031, 0034, 0041), located between the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and the knitted sole-covering fabric-region (see annotated figs. 2-3);
wherein the knitted toes-region stabilizing component is configured to stabilize, and to prevent shifting or slippage of, the knitted toes-covering fabric-region in response to body movements (make the toe region less likely to shift relative to the wearer's foot surface as formed of grip yarns; paras. 0018-0019),
wherein the toes-region stabilizing component is a loop structured (extending circumferentially around the tubular sock, forming a loop; see figs. 1, 4; annotated figs. 2-3; para. 0031) such that a top-side portion of the loop is non-symmetrical relative to a bottom-side portion of the loop (see figs. 1, 4 and annotated figs. 2-3; para. 0031);
wherein the bottom-side portion (plantar toe area 412; fig. 4; para. 0041) of the loop is configured to be located beneath a metatarsal bone and/or a proximal phalanx bone of the human user (figs. 1-2, 4; para. 0041) and the top-side portion of the loop is configured to touch only a side of a great toe of the user (as dorsal toe area 330 does not comprise any grip strips; see the medial side view in fig. 2 and dorsal view in fig. 3; paras. 0029, 0036) and only the front-side of three middle toes of the user (as dorsal toe area 330 does not comprise any grip strips; see figs. 1-2, 4) and only a side of a smallest toe of the user (as dorsal toe area 330 does not comprise any grip strips; see fig. 3 and the lateral side view in fig. 1; paras. 0029, 0036);
wherein the toes-region stabilizing component is formed of a first yarn (a grip yarn; paras. 0020, 0027-0028) having a first friction coefficient relative to human body (inherent feature);
wherein the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and the knitted sole-covering fabric-region are knitted of a second yarn (a non-grip yarn; paras. 0022, 0036), different from the first yarn (the first yarn is a grip yarn; para. 0020), having a second friction coefficient (inherent feature; para. 0022); and
wherein the first friction coefficient is greater than the second friction coefficient (a grip yarn has a greater friction coefficient than a non-grip yarn).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
782
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gazit does not explicitly disclose the second friction coefficient relative to human body being in the range of 0.4 to 2.5. However, Gazit has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable non-grip material for the second yarn, with the second friction coefficient relative to human body being in the range of 0.4 to 2.5, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Gazit does not explicitly disclose wherein the first friction coefficient is greater than the second friction coefficient by at least 25 percent. However, Gazit has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable grip material for the first yarn and a suitable non-grip material for the second yarn, with wherein the first friction coefficient is greater than the second friction coefficient by at least 25 percent, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the knitted toes-region stabilizing component is a knitted band (including a plantar toe area 412 connected with a grip strip loop 312 and formed of grip yarns; see fig. 3 and annotated fig. 2; paras. 0020, 0031, 0034, 0041) that is formed of a first yarn (a grip yarn which is an elastomeric yarn; paras. 0020, 0027-0028);
wherein the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and the knitted sole-covering fabric-region are knitted of a second yarn (a non-grip yarn; paras. 0022, 0036), different from the first yarn (the first yarn is a grip yarn; para. 0020);
wherein the first yarn has a first modulus of elasticity (inherent feature);
wherein the second yarn has a second modulus of elasticity (inherent feature);
Gazit does not explicitly disclose wherein the first modulus of elasticity is greater than the second modulus of elasticity by at least 25 percent. However, Gazit has disclosed the general conditions of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable grip material for the first yarn and a suitable non-grip material for the second yarn, with wherein the first modulus of elasticity is greater than the second modulus of elasticity by at least 25 percent, since the claimed value is merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the knitted toes-region stabilizing component is a continuous knitted element that continuously and seamlessly connects with the knitted toes-covering fabric-region and with the knitted sole-covering fabric-region (continuously knitted on a circular knit machine; fig. 10; para. 0056; claim 17).
Regarding claim 15, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1, and further discloses sock according to claim 1, wherein i) the knitted toes-region stabilizing component, and ii) the knitted toes-covering region, and iii) the knitted sole-covering region are knitted, form a continuous and seamless knitted garment that excludes any seams (continuously knitted on a circular knit machine; fig. 10; para. 0056; claim 17).
Regarding claim 16, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said first yarn comprises polyester (the grip yarn is plated with a spandex yarn covered with polyester; para. 0059).
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazit (US 2020/0221791 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 2019/0055674 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1. Gazit does not disclose wherein the first yarn is formed of: a first yarn A-1, comprising at least 500 filaments, wherein each filament having a single fiber diameter of 10 to 3,000 nanometers; a fiber A-2, having a single fiber diameter that is greater than a total diameter of the first yarn A-1; a binding agent that binds together the first yarn A-1 and the fiber A-2. However, Tanaka, in an analogous art, teaches a non-slip yarn for a sock (yarn A having high non-slip performance; paras. 0020-0021, 0065; claim 1) is formed of: a first yarn A-1 (filament A-1; para. 0021), comprising at least 500 filaments (para. 0022), wherein each filament having a single fiber diameter of 10 to 3,000 nanometers (para. 0021); a fiber A-2 (fiber A-2; para. 0020), having a single fiber diameter that is greater than a total diameter of the first yarn A-1 (para. 0020); a binding agent (para. 0043) that binds together the first yarn A-1 and the fiber A-2 (para. 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the first yarn as disclosed by Gazit, with wherein the first yarn is formed of: a first yarn A-1, comprising at least 500 filaments, wherein each filament having a single fiber diameter of 10 to 3,000 nanometers; a fiber A-2, having a single fiber diameter that is greater than a total diameter of the first yarn A-1; a binding agent that binds together the first yarn A-1 and the fiber A-2 as taught by Tanaka, in order to provide a suitable anti-slip yarn for the sock and improving wearing comfort when the sock is worn (Tanaka; para. 0065).
Regarding claim 7, Gazit and Tanaka, in combination, disclose the sock according to claim 6. Gazit does not disclose wherein the fiber A-2 is a crimped fiber having a single-fiber diameter of 5 to 20 micrometers and a crimp rate of 2 to 40 percent. However, Tanaka teaches wherein the fiber A-2 is a crimped fiber (para. 0034) having a single-fiber diameter of 5 to 20 micrometers (para. 0034) and a crimp rate of 2 to 40 percent (para. 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first yarn as disclosed by Gazit, with wherein the fiber A-2 is a crimped fiber having a single-fiber diameter of 5 to 20 micrometers and a crimp rate of 2 to 40 percent as taught by Tanaka, in order to enhance the anti-slip function of the yarn and improving wearing comfort when the sock is worn (Tanaka; para. 0065).
Regarding claim 11, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1. Gazit does not disclose wherein the first yarn comprises an ultra-fine polyester yarn formed of a plurality of discrete filaments having an average filament diameter in a range of 400 to 1,000 nanometers. However, Tanaka, in an analogous art, teaches a first yarn comprises an ultra-fine polyester yarn formed of a plurality of discrete filaments having an average filament diameter in a range of 400 to 1,000 nanometers (filament A-1; paras. 0020-0022, 0024; claims 1, 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first yarn as disclosed by Gazit, with wherein the first yarn comprises an ultra-fine polyester yarn formed of a plurality of discrete filaments having an average filament diameter in a range of 400 to 1,000 nanometers as taught by Tanaka, in order to enhance the anti-slip function of the yarn and improving wearing comfort when the sock is worn (Tanaka; para. 0065).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gazit (US 2020/0221791 A1) in view of Blecha (US 2022/0125128 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1. Gazit does not explicitly disclose wherein the first yarn contains Silicone polymers. However, Gazit does disclose wherein the first yarn contains a rubber material (para. 0027). Further, Blecha, in an analogous art, teaches wherein a non-slip yarn contains Silicone polymers (a gripping yarn for a sock comprising silicone; paras. 0060, 0063, 0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first yarn as disclosed by Gazit, with wherein the first yarn contains Silicone polymers as taught by Blecha, in order to use a suitable rubber yarn for the sock. In addition, such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1. Gazit does not disclose wherein the first yarn comprises: a core yarn that is formed of polyester and/or cotton, the core yarn coated by a coating of Silicone and polyolefin, wherein 25 to 75 percent of a weight of said coating is Silicone. However, Blecha, in an analogous art, teaches wherein a non-slip yarn (a body yarn being a gripping yarn; paras. 0060, 0063, 0075) comprises a silicone sheath, and may further comprise polyester, cotton, polypropylene, and high density polyethylene (paras. 0060, 0063, 0075). In addition, Applicant has not set forth any criticality for the specific materials and/or proportions in the yarn. Further, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that polyester or cotton has been commonly used core materials for core-sheath yarns in the garment art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first yarn as disclosed by Gazit, with wherein the first yarn comprises: a core yarn that is formed of polyester and/or cotton, the core yarn coated by a coating of Silicone and polyolefin, wherein 25 to 75 percent of a weight of said coating is Silicone, as taught by Blecha, in order to provide a suitable gripping yarn for the sock. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, and the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, and can be discovered by routine experimentation depending on the desired characteristics of a final product. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Gazit discloses the sock according to claim 1. Gazit does not disclose wherein the first yarn comprises: a core yarn that is formed of polyester and/or cotton, the core yarn coated by a coating of Silicon Dioxide. However, Applicant has not set forth any criticality for the specific materials and/or proportions in the yarn. In addition, one of ordinary skill of the art would recognize that polyester or cotton has been commonly used core materials for core-sheath yarns in the garment art; and one of ordinary skill of the art would further recognize that silica is a frictional or abrasive material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first yarn as disclosed by Gazit, with wherein the first yarn comprises: a core yarn that is formed of polyester and/or cotton, the core yarn coated by a coating of Silicon Dioxide, as taught by Blecha, in order to provide a suitable gripping yarn for the sock. Such a configuration would be considered as a mere choice of preferred material that is on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached on (571)272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732