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
This is in response to the amendment received on 04/08/26. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are examined herein.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract have been accepted and are sufficient to overcome the objection previously made.
Correction of CALCULO as a registered trademark has been corrected to overcome the specification objection previously made.
The use of the term ECO, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be entirely capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. It is unclear if ECO is a registered tradename, are you referring to the fabric/material REFAX® that is ECO x CALCULO® ? The term ECO should either be uncapitalized or properly recited to denote the fabric/material intended.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the anti-slip portion comprise a fifth anti-slip portion” should read “wherein the anti-slip portion comprise a heel anti-slip portion”. 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.
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.
Claim 4, 5, 6, and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear what claim 4 is requiring of the common starting point, is the common starting point becoming more limited in size, than that required by claim 1? Does the common starting point still include the structure as recited in claim 1? Is the “diaphysis of the third metatarsal bone” the only location of the starting point or does it also include this and the other portions as recited in claim 1? The claim does not make it clear that it is limiting the starting point to one of the previously recited regions of claim 1.
Applicant remarks that claim 4 is merely limiting the common staring point as disclosed in the specification, however, this is not made clear by the claim. Claim 1 states multiple common staring points or multiple areas of the common starting point, claim 4 does not limit the common starting point to one of the recited areas of claim 1, claim 4 adds an additional common staring point, making the common starting point indefinite as to where it is limited to on the sock.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear if “a longitudinal direction of each of the inner lower anti-slip portions” is in addition to the longitudinal direction of the inner lower portions previously recited in claim 1 or should this be “the longitudinal direction of each of the inner lower anti-slip portions”? Further, it is unclear if “a longitudinal direction of each of the first upper anti-slip portions” is in addition to the longitudinal direction of the inner upper portions previously recited in claim 1 or should this be “the longitudinal direction of each of the inner lower anti-slip portions”? Finally, it is unclear if “a longitudinal direction of each of the first outer lower anti-slip portions” is in addition to the longitudinal direction of the first outer lower portions previously recited in claim 1 or should this be “the longitudinal direction of each of the first outer lower anti-slip portions”?
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear how there are claimed third portions, when there are no presented or claimed second portions. Claim 1 from which claim 6 depends only requires first portions. Are there second portions? It is unclear what is required structurally to read on the claims.
Applicant can amend the limitation to read as a “another portion” and “additional portion” or a “sole of a toe anti-slip portion, but requiring a third when there is no second portion makes the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, it is unclear how there are claimed fourth portions, when there are no presented or claimed second and third portions. Claim 1 from which claim 7 depends only requires first portions. Are there second and third portions? It is unclear what is required structurally to read on the claims. It is unclear how there are claimed fifth portions, when there are no presented or claimed second, third and fourth portions. Claim 1 from which claim 9 depends only requires first portions. Are there second, third and fourth portions? It is unclear what is required structurally to read on the claims.
Applicant can amend the limitation to read as a “another portion” and “an additional portion” or “a toe sole anti-slip portion”, but requiring a fifth portion when there are no second or third portions makes the claim indefinite.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (WO/2019172249).
In regard to claim 1, Tanaka et al. teaches a sports sock comprising: a sock main body (sock in figures 2 images: a, b and c); and an anti-slip portion disposed on an exterior side of the sock main body (paragraphs 0033-0035 of English translation), wherein the anti-slip portion comprises an anisotropic first anti-slip portion disposed on an exterior side of a region of the main body corresponding to a thenar, a hypothenar, and a portion therebetween on a sole of a forefoot when the sock main body is worn (anti-slip portion of figure 2c is capable of being placed such that it corresponding to a thenar, a hypothenar, and a portion therebetween on a sole of a forefoot), and the first anti-slip portion comprises: a plurality of first inner anti-slip portions arranged in a radial fan-shaped manner, each first inner anti-slip portion being disposed on the exterior side of the sock main body and having a first end located at a common starting point on the sock main body such that the plurality of first inner anti-slip portions originate radially from the common staring point (see annotated figure 2c below), a longitudinal direction of each of the first inner anti-slip portions extending inward toward an inner side of the sock from the common starting point being located in a region of the sock main body corresponding to a second metatarsal bone, a third metatarsal bone, and a fourth metatarsal bone of a foot when the sock is worn (see annotated figure 2 c below, can be worn on the user’s second, third and fourth metatarsal bone as desired); and a plurality of first outer anti-slip portions arranged in a radial fan-shaped manner (see annotated figure 2c below), each first outer anti-slip portion being disposed on the exterior side of the sock main body and having a portions originate at the common starting point such that the plurality of first outer anti-slip portions originate radially from the common starting point (see annotated figure 2c below), a longitudinal direction of each of the first outer anti-slip portions extending outward toward an outer side of the sock from the common starting point (see annotated figure 2c below).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the common starting point is located in a region of the sock main body corresponding to a diaphysis of the third metatarsal bone when the sock is worn (see annotated figure 2c above, capable of being worn such that the common staring point of the sock is worn at the diaphysis of the third metatarsal bone as desired).
In regard to claim 6, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the anti-slip portion further comprises a plurality of anisotropic third anti-slip portions disposed on the exterior side of the sock main body in a region corresponding to a sole of a toe when the sock is worn, and a longitudinal direction of each of the third anti-slip portions extends in a foot length direction (see anti-slip portions above the starting point in annotated figure 2c above, capable of being worn to correspond to a sole of a toe).
In regard to claim 7, Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the anti-slip portion further comprises one or more anisotropic second anti-slip portions disposed at a center on the exterior side of the sock main body in a region corresponding to a sole of a rear foot when the sock is worn (see anti-slip portions above the starting point in annotated figure 2c above, capable of being worn to correspond to a sole of rear foot) and a longitudinal direction of each of the fourth anti-slip portions extends in a foot length direction (see annotated figure 2c above).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO2019/172249) in view of JP2019/2080A (herein referred to as JP2019).
Tanaka et al. fails to teach wherein the sports sock is a five-toed type, including five separate toe sections respectively configured to receive individual toes of a wearer.
In regard to claim 10, JP2019 teaches wherein the sports sock is a five-toed type, including five separate toe sections respectively configured to receive individual toes of a wearer. (paragraph 0077, five finger housings of the sock described).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the sock of Tanaka with the five finger housings as taught by JP2019, since the sock of Tanaka provided with fiver finger housing would teach a sock that has better toe grip during use due to the individual toe stalls for each toe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 8-9 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 112 second paragraph rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are still indefinite as detailed above. Applicant can amend the claims to make the claims more definite by detailing all of the sock structure and then placing the anti-slip portions along the sock structure, apparatus claims should be based upon the apparatus structure and not based upon human anatomy while worn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights