DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on January 7th, 2025 in which claims 1-21 were presented for examination, amended by preliminary amendment on 11/13/25 to present claims 1-4, 6-22 for examination.
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 of Species 1 (Figs. 1-4) in the reply filed on 11/13/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, 19-21 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/25. Claims will be considered for rejoinder. Nevertheless, for clarification—
Regarding remarks on page 6 that Claims 3, 4, 13, 19-21 belong to Species 1, this is not persuasive, especially because the election was without traverse and therefore the species restriction as laid out was not traversed. More specifically: Species 1 (Figs. 1-4) is directed to a sock (with no leg) and with tabs. Species 2 (Figs. 5, 6) was directed to a sock with leg. Species 3 (Figs. 7-11) was directed to a sock with leg with auxiliary aperture. Species 4 (Fig. 12) was directed to a sock with three tubular sections and/or a different order of method. Species 5 (Figs. 13, 14) was directed to a sock with binding yarn of blocking stitches. Even if evidence is provided that the disclosure of Species 1 (Figs. 1-4) is also found in Species 2-4, such evidence would hold weight for rejoinder of the withdrawn claims, but does not mean that the claims are not directed to a non-elected embodiment.
As a reminder, amendments in future prosecution to the non-withdrawn claims can only be directed to recitations disclosed specifically to Figs. 1-4, and not to the other embodiments, or will otherwise be withdrawn as to a non-elected embodiment and/or constitute a notice of non-compliance should no claims be directed to an elected embodiment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Beginning Page 30 Line 1 “aperture 60” is not in the drawings, also on Line 15, page 31 Line 16
Though currently non-elected, for compact prosecution—
Beginning Page 22 Line 13 “tubular portion (pmp)” is not in the drawings
Beginning Page 36 Line 2 toe region 305 is not in the drawings
Beginning page 36 Line 3 midfoot region 310 is not in the drawings
Beginning page 36 Line 6 heel region 315 is not in the drawings
Beginning page 38 Line 18 “medial 521, 531” is not in the drawings
Page 38 Line 21 “toe region 505” is not in the drawings
“tubular portion (pmp) 578” is not in the drawings
Beginning page 38 Line 22 “midfoot region 510” is not in the drawings
Page 38 Line 25 “heel region 515” is not in the drawings
Beginning Page 39 Line 21 “tubular portion (pmp) 578” is not in the drawings
Beginning page 39 Line 27 “trapezoidal back part 520” is not in the drawings; is this 520 dorsal?
page 39 Line 35 “distal end 528” is not in the drawings
page 40 “(pmp) 578” is not the drawings
The drawings are further objected to for the following informalities:
Though non-elected, for compact prosecution—
Fig. 9 seems to be the same as Fig. 12 other than having element 528; but Fig. 9 is not directed to sock 300, which it seems like it should
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference sign(s) not mentioned in the description:
Though non-elected, for compact prosecution—
Fig. 11 has elements 326, 336 which are not in the specification
Fig. 11 has element 32 which seems to need to read 321
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:
Page 5 Line 26 “traverse axis T” should read “traverse axis T1” for consistency with Fig. 4 and page 31 Line 3
Page 5 Line 27 “axis T” should read “axis T1”
Page 5 Line 28 “particularly T” should read “particularly T1”
Page 5 Line 33 “length l0” should read “length L0” for consistency with Fig. 2 and page 29 Lines 31-35
Page 5 Line 34 “length l1, l1” should read “length L1, L1” for consistency with Fig. 2 and page 29 Lines 31-35
Page 5 Line 34 “0.3* l0” should read “0.3 * L0”
Page 5 Line 34 “0.4* l0” should read “0.3 * L0”
Page 5 Line 35 “0.5* l0” should read “0.3 * L0”
Page 6 Line 1 “embodiment, l0” should read “embodiment, L0”
Page 6 Line 1 “0.5 * l1” should read “0.5 * L1”
Page 6 Line 2 “particularly l0” should read “particularly L0”
Page 6 Line 2 “0.70*l1” should read “0.70*L1”
Page 15 Line 9 “or plantar” needs review; if step (B) about decreasing the number of stitches is interpreted as plantar instead of dorsal, it would be opposite to the disclosure of page 10 Line 31-page 11 Line 3
Page 15 Line 13 “or dorsal” needs review; if step (C) about increasing the number of stitches is interpreted as dorsal instead of plantar, it would be opposite to the disclosure of page 11 Lines 4-12
Page 29 Lines 34-35 “L1 is greater than or equal to L0*0.5, particularly greater than or equal to L0*0.6” needs review as it is inconsistent with page 5 Line 35 which reads less than
Though currently non-elected, for compact prosecution—
Page 18 Line 28 “(pj)” should read “(Pj)” for consistency in the figures
Beginning Page 18 Line 28, the term “tubular portion” for Pj needs review whether it should read “leg portion” for consistency with later disclosure; for example, page 17 Lines 34-35 “tubular midfoot or leg portion” is unclear whether the terms are synonymous or directed to different structures; page 35 Line 3 recites “leg portion (pj)” but it is unclear if this incorrect, as page 35 Lines 26-27 indicate “leg portion (pj) 370”
Page 18 Line 31 “pin” should read “Pin” for consistency with the figures
Beginning page 18 Line 31, the term “tubular portion” for Pin needs review whether it should read “foot portion”, such as in light of page 20 Lines 26-29
Page 19 Line 6 “pin” should read “Pin”
Page 20 Line 18 “(pj) or (pin)” should read “(Pj) or (Pin)”
Page 20 Line 26 “pin” should read “Pin”
Page 20 Line 30 “tubular portion” needs review whether it should read “leg portion”
Page 21 Lines 1, 2 “tubular portion (pj)” needs review/correction as aforementioned above
Page 21 Line 4 “tubular portion (pin)” needs review/correction as aforementioned above
Page 21 Line 8 “(pj) or (pin)” should read “(Pj) or (Pin)”
Similarly page 22 Line 3 “tubular portion (Pj) or (Pin)” needs review
Similarly, page 22 Line 34 “tubular portion (pmp)” needs review if it should be the midfoot tubular portion; similarly page 26 Line 26
Page 25 Line 11 pin needs review/correction
Page 25 Line 22 pj needs review/correction
Page 25 Line 25 pin needs review/correction
Page 25 Line 31 pin needs review/correction
Page 26 Line 3 pj needs review/correction
Page 26 Line 28 pin needs review/correction
Page 35 Line 3 (pj) should read (Pj)
Page 35 Line 15 pin should read Pin
Page 35 Lines 26-27 “leg portion (pj) 370” needs review whether (pj) should be deleted
Page 36 Lines 3-4 “tubular portion 378 (pmp)” needs review whether (pmp) should be deleted
Page 36 Lines 12-13 “knitting method 30”, delete “30”
Beginning Page 37 Line 5 “tubular portion (pmp) 378” needs review/correction
Beginning Page 38 Lines 4-5 “tubular portion (Pj) 370” needs review /correction
Beginning “tubular portion (pj) 570” needs review whether it should be a leg portion like page 35 Line 3 since there is a separate midfoot tubular portion 578
Page 38 Line 36 “tubular portion (pmp) 570” needs review whether it should be “leg portion (Pj) 570”
Page 39 Line 3 “tubular portion (pj)” needs review/correction
Page 39 Line 32 “back part 520” needs review whether it should read “dorsal part 520”
Page 39 Line 34 (pmp) 578” needs review
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 11, 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 3 after “dorsal” add –part—
Claim 8 Line 3 delete “arranged” and substitute –configured--; disagreement may warrant at least a U.S.C. 101 rejection for attempting to positively claim human body parts such as portions of a foot
Claim 8 Line 3 before “toes” delete “the”
Claim 8 Line 4 before “midfoot” delete “the” and substitute –a--; the only “midfoot region” previously established was of the sock (Claim 1 Lines 1-2), and not of a human foot
Claim 10 Line 2 before “number” delete “the” and substitute –a- for proper antecedent basis
Claim 10 Line 3 before “number” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 10 Line 2 before “row” add –number— to provide antecedent basis for calling “n” a number in Claim 10 Line 5
Claim 10 Line 3 before “row of stitches (n+2)” add –number—
Claim 10 Line 5 delete “n, p and k” and substitute (n), (p), and (k)” for consistency
Claim 11 Line 3 delete “(T1)” as all appropriate terms require drawing numerals if drawing numerals are claimed
Claim 15 Line 3 delete “step of knitting B” and substitute –a step B of knitting” for consistency with Claim 15 Line 5, Line 8
Claim 15 Line 5 before “distal” delete “the” and substitute –a--
Claim 15 Line 10 before “D” add –step—
Claim 15 Line 16 before “foot-receiving” delete “the” and substitute –a--
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-12, 14-18, 22 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term "several" in claim 1 Line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "several" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “several” is “more than two but not many”; however, there is no standard provided for what is “not many”. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “a plurality of knitted through apertures.”
The term “or plantar” in Claim 15 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the plantar part can be decreasing as it would be contradictory to initial disclosure in the specification (page 10 Line 31-page 11 Line 3).
The term “or plantar” in Claim 15 Line 5 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how, if Claim 15 Line 3 can be plantar, how Claim 15 Line 5 can also be plantar, which is what the claim currently can recite.
The term “or dorsal” in Claim 15 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the plantar part can be decreasing as it would be contradictory to initial disclosure in the specification (page 11 Lines 4-12).
The term “or dorsal” in Claim 15 Line 5 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how, if Claim 15 Line 3 can be dorsal, how Claim 15 Line 5 can also be dorsal, which is what the claim currently can recite.
The term “dorsal and plantar parts” in Claim 15 Line 9 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Since Claim 15 Line 3, 5 indicate that there can be two plantar parts, or two dorsal parts, Line 9 is unclear as it seems to narrow within the same claim.
The term "several" in claim 15 Line 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "several" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “several” is “more than two but not many”; however, there is no standard provided for what is “not many”. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “a plurality of knitted through apertures.”
The term “aperture” in Claim 18 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term relates to “aperture opening” in Claim 15 Line 15. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the terms will be considered the same.
Claim 18 recites the term “the internal foot -receiving volume” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 Line 16 recites “a foot-receiving volume” but does not indicate the volume as internal.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 7-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically:
the structure of Claim(s) 6 is knitted trapezoidal dorsal/plantar parts
the structure of Claim(s) 7 is knitted trapezoidal dorsal/plantar parts continuous with one another
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (USPN 11154109), herein Li, in view of Langer et al (US Publication 2006/0144097), herein Langer.
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a knitted sock (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Figs. 1, 5; Col. 4 Lines 22-23 "A three-dimensional (3D) shoe blank of the invention is an integral knit fabric"; Col. 5 Lines 49-50 “as shown in Fig. 5, after the knitting of the 3D shoe blank 100 is finished…100 can…form a shoe body 1”; Li teaches the blank which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a sock) comprising
a toe region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 27-29 "the 3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112, a front sole portion 120, a rear portion 130, and a heel portion 140", wherein toe region is part of 120, 112)
a midfoot region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 27-29 "the 3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112, a front sole portion 120, a rear portion 130, and a heel portion 140", wherein midfoot region is part of 120, 112, and 130),
and a heel region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 27-29 "the 3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112, a front sole portion 120, a rear portion 130, and a heel portion 140", wherein heel region is part of 130, 140),
wherein said knitted sock comprises
a knitted trapezoidal dorsal part and a knitted trapezoidal plantar part (see Fig. 1, 4, 5 for 112, 120 being trapezoidal dorsal and plantar, respectively)
which are secured by knitted medial and lateral securing regions (see Figs. 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 63-65 "front sole portion 120 and the upper portion 112 are connected at two sides by the connection lines 102 and 103"),
and wherein the knitted trapezoidal plantar and dorsal parts and the knitted medial and lateral securing regions extend in the toe region and at least partly in the midfoot region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; see also annotated Fig. 5 below for clarification).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the knitted medial and lateral securing regions comprises several knitted through apertures.
Langer teaches wherein at least one of the knitted medial and lateral securing regions comprises several knitted through apertures (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 9; [0124] "regions A and B …interlock with each other…only in every nth stitch row, wherein n is at least 2"; [0125] "interlocking, ventilation zones 154 are produced, in the transition region between the regions A and B, in the form of ventilation openings, which are in succession along the transition line 112 and are separated from one another by means of interlocking, consisting of a respective interlocking stitch 128, 136 and a stitch 130 or 138, knitted together with the interlocking stitch, located therebetween"; [0126] "zones 154 promote the wearer comfort"; [0127] "allow the transfer of moisture").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to have apertures at the connection between dorsal/plantar regions as taught by Langer in order to provide ventilation, such as for comfort and/or moisture transfer ([0125], [0126], [0127]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein the knitted trapezoidal plantar and dorsal parts and the knitted medial and lateral securing regions extend in the toe region and in the midfoot region of the sock up to the heel region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part (112) is knitted with rows of dorsal stitches that are knitted back and forth and wherein the knitted trapezoidal plantar part (120) is knitted with rows of plantar stitches that are knitted back and forth (Col. 11 Lines 3-6 "when forming the 3D shoe blank 100 of Fig. 1, at least a yarn (such as 10 and 20) is knitted alternatingly on the front needle bed FB and the back needle bed BB to form...upper portion 112", wherein alternatingly meets the claimed term of back/forth, wherein 112 and 120 are of 100; see Figs. 12, 13; Col. 4 Lines 22-24 "shoe blank…made by using a flat knitting machine"; nevertheless, see claim interpretation; the recitation “knitted back and forth” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Li’s flat knitting results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other dorsal part forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the flat knitting back and forth technique with the Li reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art. As such, see aforementioned rejection of Claim 1 wherein Li has all the structure of Claim 6; in other words, the trapezoidal dorsal/plantar parts of Li teaches the trapezoidal dorsal/plantar parts of Claim 6 because it has the structure of Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein the knitted trapezoidal plantar part comprises a toe end part (see Fig. 1 at 101; Col. 4 Lines 41-42 "front sole portion 120 is formed by continuous knitting from the upper portion 112 with a folding line 101"; toe end part is 101 at plantar 120; Li teaches the end part which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for a toe),
and the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part comprises a toe end part (toe end part is 101 at dorsal 112; Li teaches the end part which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for a toe),
and wherein the toe end part of the knitted trapezoidal plantar part is knitted continuously with the toe end part of the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part (see Fig. 1 at 101; Col. 4 Lines 41-42; nevertheless, see claim interpretation; the recitation “knitted continuously” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Li’s knitting results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other end part forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the knitting technique with the Li reference above as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art. As such, see aforementioned rejection of Claim 1 wherein Li has all the structure of Claim 7, especially in light of Col. 4 Lines 41-42; in other words, the continuous trapezoidal dorsal/plantar parts of Li teaches the trapezoidal dorsal/plantar parts of Claim 7 because it has the structure of Claim 7). Regarding Claim 8, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein the knitted trapezoidal plantar part and the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part together form a pocket of substantially trapezoidal shape, arranged to receive at least partly the toes of a foot, and at least partly the midfoot region of the foot (see Fig. 5 for pocket between 112 and 120; Li teaches the pocket which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being of substantially trapezoidal and capable of at least partly receiving toes and midfoot region of a foot, especially as 120, 112 forming the pocket are trapezoidal). Regarding Claim 9, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part comprises a distal part and a proximal part (see Fig. 1 dorsal part 112 with distal part at 101 and proximal part near the label "Fig. 1").
Li at least suggests and wherein the number of stitches (ad) in a row of stitches of the distal part is smaller than the number of stitches (bd) in a row of stitches of the proximal part (see Fig. 1 for trapezoidal shape; [0124] "regions A and B …interlock with each other…only in every nth stitch row, wherein n is at least 2").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to have a consistent stitch spacing in each row and thereby meet the recitation with the trapezoidal shape in order to provide a consistent interlocking, especially as there is no disclosure indicating otherwise.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further at least suggests wherein the number of stitches (k) of any row of stitches (n) knitted in the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part is greater than or equal to the number of stitches (p) in the row of stitches (n+2) knitted after the row of stitches (n) (see Fig. 1, wherein knitting direction is from 112 to 120, wherein 112 tapers toward 120; as such the number of stitches in row n is greater than the number of stitches in row n+2 assuming consistent stitch spacing for each row; for knitting direction -- Col. 9 Lines 4-5 "method for knitting the 3D shoe blank 100 or 200"; Col. 11 Lines 14-16 "continuing knitting and forming a front sole portion (such as 120...) from the upper portion (such as 112...)"; as such, 112 formed before 120),
and wherein in said knitted trapezoidal dorsal part, the numbers n, p and k being integers other than 0 (wherein stitches and rows are counted in integers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to have a consistent stitch spacing in each row and thereby meet the recitation with the trapezoidal shape in order to provide a consistent interlocking, especially as there is no disclosure indicating otherwise.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part and the knitted trapezoidal plantar part are symmetrical along a transverse axis of symmetry (T1) passing between the distal end of the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part and the distal end of the knitted trapezoidal plantar part (see Fig. 1 for symmetrical).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li at least suggests wherein the knitted trapezoidal plantar and dorsal parts comprise at most 16% by mass of one or more elastomeric yarn(s) (Col. 5 Lines 52-53 "when the 3D shoe blank 100 is knitted, a thermoplastic yarn can be knitted simultaneously"; Col. 5 Lines 68-61 "material of the thermoplastic yarn can be…nylon, polyester, acrylic"; Col. 4 Lines 27-30 "3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112...preferably double-knitted from at least a yarn"; Col. 4 Lines 37-40 "at least one yarn stated herein is preferably formed by twisting and combining multiple yarns with different characteristic (such as materials, types, shapes, colors and so on), but it is not limited thereto", wherein there are no elastomeric yarns recited).
Nevertheless, Langer further at least suggests wherein the knitted plantar and dorsal parts comprise at most 16% by mass of one or more elastomeric yarn(s) ([0002] "knitted stocking, which comprises a first region, which comprises a tread region and/or a heel region and/or an upper heel region and/or a toe region and/or an over toe region of the stocking and contains at least one first material, and comprises a second region, which comprises…an instep region of the stocking and comprises at least one second material, which is different from the first material"; for first region-- [0032] "material of the first region comprises wool"; [0035] "material of the first region comprises cotton"; [0040] "first region comprises a synthetic material, preferably polyamide and/or polypropylene"; [0071] "region A is knitted from a first main yarn, on which a first plating yarn is under-plated"; [0074] "woollen yarn is preferably used as the first plating yarn"; [0075] "wool...very good moisture absorption, its good heat insulation capacity, and its temperature-compensating properties"; [0080] "natural fibre content of 100% is achieved in the region A"; [0081] "Cotton, like wool, has good moisture absorption...is comfortable to wear"; [0092] "cotton is soft, easy-care and pleasant to wear...high degree of wearer comfort"; for second region-- [0090] "region B...comprises a second main yarn, on which a second plating yarn is under-plated"; [0091] "cotton is preferably used as the second main yarn"; [0093] "resilient material, for example elastane, may...be used as the second plating yarn for forming the inner ply of the region B"; however, [0089] "region B may be one-ply"; [0090] "second main yarn forms an outer ply"; as such, Langer is capable of being one-ply without the elastane, and therefore 0% elastomeric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s parts as indicated by Langer depending on the properties and functionalities desired (such as only being for moisture absorption in both regions/parts).
Regarding Claim 15, Li teaches a method for knitting a knitted sock (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for structure for the method-- see Figs. 1, 5; Col. 4 Lines 22-23 "A three-dimensional (3D) shoe blank of the invention is an integral knit fabric"; Col. 5 Lines 49-50 “as shown in Fig. 5, after the knitting of the 3D shoe blank 100 is finished…100 can…form a shoe body 1”; wherein the shoe body 1 is a sock inasmuch as the structure has been claimed) comprising
a toe region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 27-29 "the 3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112, a front sole portion 120, a rear portion 130, and a heel portion 140", wherein toe region is part of 120, 112)
a midfoot region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 27-29 "the 3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112, a front sole portion 120, a rear portion 130, and a heel portion 140", wherein midfoot region is part of 120, 112, and 130),
and a heel region (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 27-29 "the 3D shoe blank 100 includes an upper portion 112, a front sole portion 120, a rear portion 130, and a heel portion 140", wherein heel region is part of 130, 140),
wherein said method comprises:
a step of knitting B a trapezoidal dorsal part (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1, 4, 5 for 112, 120 being trapezoidal dorsal and plantar, respectively),
a step C of knitting a trapezoidal plantar part from the distal end of the knitted trapezoidal dorsal part (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Fig. 1, 4, 5 for 112, 120 being trapezoidal dorsal and plantar, respectively),
a step of knitting lateral securing region and a medial securing region which secure the knitted trapezoidal dorsal and plantar parts along their respective lateral and medial edges (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Figs. 4, 5; Col. 4 Lines 63-65 "front sole portion 120 and the upper portion 112 are connected at two sides by the connection lines 102 and 103"),
the knitting said lateral and medial securing regions being carried out progressively during the knitting step C (Col. 11 Lines 48-53 "when the knitting of the upper portion 120 is completed…connection of the upper portion 112 to the front sole portion 120 by the connection lines 102 and 103 are also completed"; see Col. 11 Lines 14-48 for details);
wherein the knitted trapezoidal dorsal and plantar parts and said knitted medial and lateral securing regions are knitted so as to extend in the toe region and at least partly in the midfoot region of the knitted sock (see Figs. 1, 4, 5; Col. 6 Lines 8-13 "The connection lines 102 and 103...respectively start from two ends of the folding line 101 and extend...until reaching the shoe opening 1a"; wherein folding line 101 is in toe region, and 1a is in midfoot region; see also annotated Fig. 5 below for clarification);
PNG
media_image1.png
678
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein said method comprises a step A of knitting an aperture opening out into the foot-receiving volume of the sock (see Fig. 5; Col. 6 Lines 3-8 "upper portion 112…and the upper edge of the 3D rear shoe portion 100a (i.e. the outer edges of the rear portion 130 and the heel portion 140) together define a shoe opening 1a of the shoe body 1 to allow the foot to enter the interior space enclosed by the shoe body 1", wherein 1a is knitted as part of at least step B).
Li at least suggests a step of knitting B a trapezoidal dorsal (112) or plantar part by progressively decreasing the number of knitted stitches per row(s) of stitches (see Fig. 1 for trapezoidal shape; [0124] "regions A and B …interlock with each other…only in every nth stitch row, wherein n is at least 2"),
a step C of knitting a trapezoidal plantar (120) or dorsal part from the distal end of the knitted trapezoidal dorsal or plantar part by progressively increasing the number of knitted stitches per row(s) of stitches (see Fig. 1 for trapezoidal shape, wherein knitting direction is from 112 to 120, wherein 112 tapers toward 120; as such the number of stitches in row n is greater than the number of stitches in row n+2 assuming consistent stitch spacing for each row; for knitting direction/from the distal end -- Col. 9 Lines 4-5 "method for knitting the 3D shoe blank 100 or 200"; Col. 11 Lines 14-16 "continuing knitting and forming a front sole portion (such as 120...) from the upper portion (such as 112...)"; as such, 112 formed before 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to have a consistent stitch spacing in each row and thereby meet the recitation with the trapezoidal shape in order to provide a consistent interlocking, especially as there is no disclosure indicating otherwise.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the knitted medial and lateral securing regions comprises several knitted through apertures.
Langer teaches wherein at least one of the knitted medial and lateral securing regions comprises several knitted through apertures (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- see Fig. 9; [0124] "regions A and B …interlock with each other…only in every nth stitch row, wherein n is at least 2"; [0125] "interlocking, ventilation zones 154 are produced, in the transition region between the regions A and B, in the form of ventilation openings, which are in succession along the transition line 112 and are separated from one another by means of interlocking, consisting of a respective interlocking stitch 128, 136 and a stitch 130 or 138, knitted together with the interlocking stitch, located therebetween"; [0126] "zones 154 promote the wearer comfort"; [0127] "allow the transfer of moisture").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to have apertures at the connection between dorsal/plantar regions as taught by Langer in order to provide ventilation, such as for comfort and/or moisture transfer ([0125], [0126], [0127]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Li further teaches wherein the knitting step A is performed before the knitting step B (wherein the aperture of knitting step A already exists as step B is begun, especially as similar to applicant disclosure).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Li further teaches wherein the trapezoidal dorsal part (112) is knitted with rows of dorsal stitches knitted back and forth (Col. 11 Lines 3-6 "when forming the 3D shoe blank 100 of Fig. 1, at least a yarn (such as 10 and 20) is knitted alternatingly on the front needle bed FB and the back needle bed BB to form...upper portion 112", wherein alternatingly meets the claimed term of back/forth; see Figs. 12, 13),
and the trapezoidal plantar part (120) is knitted with rows of plantar stitches knitted back and forth (Col. 4 Lines 22-24 "shoe blank 100…made by using a flat knitting machine" wherein is part of 100 and therefore Col. 11 Lines 3-6 applies; see Fig. 13, wherein alternatingly meets the claimed term of back/forth).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (USPN 11154109), herein Li, in view of Langer et al (US Publication 2006/0144097), herein Langer, further in view of Woodard (US Publication 2018/0303204).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the knitted sock comprises a knitted trapezoidal lower heel part and a knitted trapezoidal upper heel part which are joined by knitted auxiliary medial and lateral securing regions.
Woodard teaches wherein the knitted sock comprises a knitted trapezoidal lower heel part and a knitted trapezoidal upper heel part which are joined by knitted auxiliary medial and lateral securing regions (see Fig. 11; [0036] “knitted component 134”; [0037] "heel portion 145"; for auxiliary-- see Fig. 10 for application to Fig. 11 heel portion 145-- [0053] "heel portion 145 may be formed in a manner similar to the cup-like shape of the toe portion 144"; [0049] "Fig. 9...underfoot side 186 of the toe portion 144...overfoot side 188 of the toe portion 144...connection structure 192 may secure the underfoot side 186 to the overfoot side 188"; Woodard teaches the knitted component which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being a sock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s heel with the heel of Woodard as a known structure for heels in footwear.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (USPN 11154109), herein Li, in view of Langer et al (US Publication 2006/0144097), herein Langer, further in view of Lang et al (USPN 12082639), herein Lang.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Li does not explicitly teach wherein at least one dimension of at least one through aperture is greater than or equal to 1 mm.
Lang teaches wherein at least one dimension of at least one through aperture is greater than or equal to 1 mm (see Fig. 5; Col. 14 Lines 35-39 "base area 620 spans large parts of the shoe upper 1. Considerably greater air-permeability is desirable in this area...in order to enable good ventilation"; Col. 14 Lines 42-43 "apertures are provided for in the weft-knitting pattern, which enable airflow"; Col. 14 Lines 61-64 "diameter of the apertures is approximately 1-2 mm…due to these dimensions, a certain ventilation…is enabled").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s ventilation apertures provided by Langer with the dimension of Lang as a known size of apertures in footwear to provide a desired amount off ventilation (Col. 14 Lines 61-64).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (USPN 11154109), herein Li, in view of Langer et al (US Publication 2006/0144097), herein Langer, further in view of Dealey (USPN 12349759).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Li teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Li further teaches wherein the knitting step A is a step of knitting an aperture for introducing the foot into the internal foot-receiving volume of the knitted sock (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Li teaches the aperture which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being introducing a foot into the volume which is internal as shown in Fig. 5).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the knitting step A is a step of circularly knitting the aperture.
However, Li does teach flat knitting the aperture (Col. 4 Lines 22-24 "shoe blank…made by using a flat knitting machine").
Dealey teaches circular knitting and flat knitting are interchangeable for a knitted sock (Col. 3 Lines 51-57 " At least a portion of the upper 102, and potentially substantially the entirety of the upper 102, may be formed of the knitted component 130 (or another suitable textile component). The knitted component 130 may be formed as an integral one-piece element during a knitting process, such as a weft knitting process (e.g., with a flat knitting machine or circular knitting machine)"; Dealey teaches the upper which is a sock inasmuch as the structure is claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to knit via circular knitting instead of flat knitting as it is well within the skill set of one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the sock on a circular knitting machine instead of a flat knitting machine depending on availability of machines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Amis et al (USPN 2017/0332703), Cahn (USPN 1136097) directed to apertures; Yumiba et al (US Publication 2018/0184755), Kino et al (USPN 11085135), Okamoto (WO 2008/120476) directed to auxiliary medial and lateral securing regions; Dombrow et al (USPN 10051918) directed to reciprocal knitting; Nestler (USPN 1806492), Sghiatti (USPN 6354114) directed to anterior and posterior gripping tabs; Greene et al (USPN 9149086), Dealey (US Publication 2016/0058100) directed to anterior gripping tab; Amis et al (US Publication 2020/0205481), Chesebro Jr et al (USPN 7076973), Chesebro et al (USPN 3601818) directed to posterior gripping tab; Stevenson (US Publication 2011/0197343), Symonds-Powell (USPN 7533424), Millet (US Publication 2008/0229482), Corry (USPN 5867838), Freeman (USPN 6324698) directed to auxiliary apertures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, 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.
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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732