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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-10, 12-13, 15, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 6, 2026. Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the Species numbering issue and re-numbering the Species in the response.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-5, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egozi (US 2011/0061148) in view of Song (US 2006/0059726).
Regarding Claims 1-5, Egozi discloses a sock (1) comprising a foot part (4) made of a textile (para.7), wherein the foot part comprises an inset (5) integrated with the textile at least partly in a sole (3,4) of the foot part, said inset providing increased thickness to a thickness of surrounding parts of the textile (as seen in Fig.1), wherein the inset is located in one or more of the following areas: - an area covering at least an innermost metatarsal bone of a wearer; - an area covering at least an outermost metatarsal bone of the wearer; - an area covering at least in an inner and medial area of a heel bone of the wearer;- an area covering at least an outer and lateral part of a heel bone of the wearer (as seen in Fig.1-3). Egozi does not disclose the inset being at least two wedge-shaped insets integrated with the textile at least partly in a sole of the foot part, said insets providing increased thickness to a thickness of surrounding parts of the textile, wherein at least a first wedge-shaped inset is located in one or more of the following areas: - an area covering at least an innermost metatarsal bone of a wearer; - an area covering at least an outermost metatarsal bone of the wearer; and at least a second wedge-shaped inset is located in one or more of the following areas - an area covering at least in an inner and medial area of a heel bone of the wearer;- an area covering at least an outer and lateral part of a heel bone of the wearer. However, Song teaches an insole (10) having at least two wedge-shaped insets (21,22,24,25), said insets providing increased thickness (as seen in Fig.1 & 2), wherein at least a first wedge-shaped inset is located in one or more of the following areas: - an area covering at least an innermost metatarsal bone of a wearer/forefoot medial wedge (22); - an area covering at least an outermost metatarsal bone of the wearer/forefoot lateral wedge (21); and at least a second wedge-shaped inset is located in one or more of the following areas - an area covering at least in an inner and medial area of a heel bone of the wearer/rearfoot medial wedge (24);- an area covering at least an outer and lateral part of a heel bone of the wearer/rearfoot lateral wedge (25)(para.33; as seen in Fig.1 & 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insole of Egozi to have a forefoot medial wedge, a forefoot lateral wedge, a rearfoot medial wedge, and a rearfoot lateral wedge, as taught by Song, in order to provide a corrective wedge assembly that manipulates the joint motion to desired biomechanical function, so a user can to walk smoothly and comfortably. When in combination, Egozi and Song teach at least two wedge-shaped insets integrated with the textile at least partly in a sole of the foot part, said insets providing increased thickness to a thickness of surrounding parts of the textile.
Regarding Claim 11, Egozi and Song disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Song further teaches the first or second wedge-shaped inset may each have multiple layers (para.24; as seen in Fig.3). While Egozi and Song do not disclose wherein the layers are laminated, such that at least first or second wedge-shaped inset is made by laminating, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the layer connection of Song for lamination, as a simple substitution of one well known type of layer connection for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing layers which are securely connected together. It is noted that “inset is made by laminating” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. Egozi and Song disclose the structure of the invention as claimed and therefore the process by which the product is obtained is not germane to the issue of patentability. Patentability shall not be given for the process by which the claimed product was made.
Regarding Claim 14, Egozi discloses a sock according to claim 1, wherein a material of the textile of the foot part comprises one or more of nylon, elastane or polypropene (para.7).
2. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egozi (US 2011/0061148) and Song (US 2006/0059726), in view of Melton (US 4,276,671).
Regarding Claim 16, Egozi and Song disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Egozi further teaches the inset (5) is securely sealed in a pocket (Abstract; as seen in Fig.1). Egozi does not disclose wherein said inset is stitched or sewed on top of the foot part. However, Melton teaches a sock (10) with a foot part (13) and an inset (15) is stitched or sewed (via 14) on top of the foot part (as seen in Fig.1 & 3; Col.5, lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have secured the at least first or second wedge-shaped inset of modified Egozi with stitching, as taught by Melton, in order to provide an inset which is secured in one place and does not shift around in an unwanted manner during use of the sock. When in combination, Egozi, Song, and Melton teach wherein said at least first or second wedge-shaped inset is stitched or sewed on top of the foot part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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 at 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights