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
Applicant's amendment filed on January 15, 2026 has been received. Claims 21-36 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Furthermore, it is noted that the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 17, 2025 are withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed on January 14, 2026, which has been approved.
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.
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 21, 22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blecha et al. (herein Blecha)(US PG Pub 2022/0125128) in view of Mori et al. (herein Mori)(US PG Pub 2008/004113), further in view of Blecha et al. (herein Blecha ‘129)(US PG Pub 2022/0125129).
Regarding claim 21, Blecha teaches a knit sock (200, see Figs. 6-8) comprising:
a foot portion (206) comprising a toe end (204); and
a heel portion (202) positioned adjacent to the foot portion (see Figs. 6-8 and at least paragraphs 0057-0058), the heel portion having an Achilles section and a plantar section (respective upper and lower portions of heel portion 202);
wherein the plantar section includes a first plurality of integrally knit grip strips (224 in heel portion 202) that extend from a lateral side to a medial side of the plantar section (see at least Figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0060-0062).
Blecha substantially discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to further disclose wherein the first plurality of integrally knit grip strips comprises terry loops.
However, Mori teaches a knit sock (1) comprising a grip portion on a plantar surface of the sock (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0045), wherein the grip portion is formed of terry loops (R-LP), so as to enhance the gripping qualities of the sock via the projecting structure of the terry loops (see paragraph 0045).
Therefore, based on Mori’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Blecha’s first plurality of integrally knit grip strips to comprise terry loops, as doing so would further enhance the gripping quality of the grip strips via the projecting structure of the terry loops.
Blecha also fails to disclose wherein at least the Achilles section comprises a knit structure having an alternating pattern comprising a first number of knit courses knit with terry loops and a second number of knit courses knit without terry loops.
However, Blecha ‘129 teaches a knit sock (e.g., 200) having an Achilles section (600, see Figs. 20-21) having an alternating pattern (alternating stripe pattern of 600, see Figs. 20-21 and paragraph 0081) comprising a first number of knit courses (courses forming terry loop stripes) knit with terry loops and a second number of knit courses (non-terry loop courses located between adjacent terry loop stripes) knit without terry loops (see Figs. 20-21 and paragraph 0081), so as to help the heel of the sock conform to the heel of the wearer (see paragraph 0081).
Therefore, based on Blecha ‘129’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Blecha’s Achilles section to comprise a knit structure having an alternating pattern comprising a first number of knit courses knit with terry loops and a second number of knit courses knit without terry loops, as doing so would help the heel of the sock conform to the heel of the wearer.
Regarding claim 22, the modified sock of Blecha (i.e., Blecha in view of Mori and Blecha ‘129) is further disclosed to comprise:
a second plurality of integrally knit grip strips (224 of Blecha as annotated in Fig. 7 below) located on a lateral side of the foot portion (see Figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0057-0062 of Blecha; note that strips 224 wrap around the bottom of the foot from a lateral side to a medial side of the foot portion and therefore the second plurality of grip strips are located at least on a lateral side of the foot portion); and
a third plurality of integrally knit grip strips (224 of Blecha as annotated in Fig. 7 below) located on a medial side of the foot portion (see Figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0057-0062 of Blecha, and note above).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, the modified sock of Blecha (i.e., Blecha in view of Mori and Blecha ‘129) is further disclosed wherein the integrally knit grip strips (224 of Blecha) are knit with a grip yarn (see at least paragraphs 0059-0060 of Blecha).
Regarding claim 27, the modified sock of Blecha (i.e., Blecha in view of Mori and Blecha ‘129) is further disclosed wherein the grip strips (224 of Blecha) are absent from a dorsal midfoot portion and a plantar midfoot portion of the sock (see Figs. 6-8 and paragraphs 0059-0062 of Blecha; grip strips 224 are generally located along the ball and heel areas of the sock, and are absent from a midfoot portion of the sock).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blecha, Mori, and Blecha ‘129, as applied to claim 25 above, in view of Amis et al. (herein Amis)(US PG Pub 2016/0340813).
Regarding claim 26, Blecha, Mori, and Blecha ‘129 together teach the limitations of claim 25, as discussed above, but fail to further teach wherein the grip yarn comprises filaments having a diameter from about 25 nanometers to about 350 nanometers.
However, Amis teaches a knit sock (10) comprising one or more integrally knit grip strips (40) that are knit with a yarn formed of filaments having a diameter from about 25 nanometers to about 350 nanometers (see Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0025 and 0040; Amis teaches wherein the yarn has a very small denier per filament that is less than 0.01, which corresponds to the claimed range according to paragraph 0051 of the instant specification, which states: “The term "grip yarns” used when describing yarns that form the grip strips refer to a yarn having a
high number of filaments (e.g., 7000 or greater) per single yarn strand such that the denier per filament of the grip yarn is about 0.01 or less. Stated differently, the grip yarn may be formed of filaments having a diameter from about 25 nanometers to about 350 nanometers”), to enhance grip in select regions of the sock (see paragraph 0040 of Amis).
Therefore, based on Amis’ teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed Blecha’s grip yarn specifically from filaments having a diameter from about 25 nanometers to about 350 nanometers; as such a filament size has been shown to provide enhanced grip.
Allowable Subject Matter
As previously indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 17, 2025, claims 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., claims 21 and 22).
As previously indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 17, 2025, claims 28-36 are allowable over the prior art of record.
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 JOCELYN BRAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-0581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12:00 pm - 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, Clinton Ostrup, can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOCELYN BRAVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights