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 amendment received on 09/02/26. Claims 1, 10 and 14 have been amended, claim 21 has been newly added and claims 6-7, 9, 12, 15-16 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: support for the following “anti-viralis” as found in claims 1 and 14.
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 1-5, 8, 10-11, 13, 14 and 21 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 claims 1 and 14 detail the agent to be an “anti-viralis”, however, the specification is silent to this term and fails to define what agents this would include.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, it is unclear what “copper of is cations” requires of the antimicrobial agent. Is copper requires or are just cations of any type required?
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what “the one or more at least one organic antimicrobial agent”, is this the “at least one antimicrobial agent” previously presented? Is this a new agent? It is unclear what applicant is referring to and what is required to read on the claim. The examiner is interpreting this limitation to read as “the at least one antimicrobial agent” as previously presented in claim 1. Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the one or more at least one organic antimicrobial agent” in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “an antimicrobial yarn the knitted tubular sock body”, the limitation does not make clear what is required.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear what the “coating” is and if it is separate from the distributed, dispersed, or dissolved anti-microbial agent previously recited. It is unclear what structure is required to read on the claim and how the coating and anti-microbial agent are associated.
Any remaining claims are rejected depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1-5, 8, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2014/0223630) in view of Rios et al. (US 2010/0183814) and Hendricks et al. (US 7,754,625).
In regard to claim 1, Johnson teaches a sock (sock: 10) or shoe cover comprising: a tubular sock body comprising a body (see figures 1 and 2), a closed end (see closed end), an opposing open foot-receiving end (opposing end of sock from closed end: figures 1 and 2), a dorsal face (top of sock: figures 1 and 2), and a surface contact face (bottom of sock: figures 1 and 2); at least one grip feature presented on at least the surface contact face (grip segments: 24, figures 1 and 2; paragraph 0029); and at least one antimicrobial agent distributed, dispersed, or dissolved in at least one grip feature (paragraph 0030 and 0031). It is noted that the sock body being knitted is a product by process limitation (see MPEP 2113), therefore, the method of making the sock of the prior art is not germane to patentability of the prior art final sock product taught by the prior art. Johnson teaches the tubular sock final garment sock structure (see figure 2-3).
However, Johnson fails to teach the agent being a bactericide or an antiviral capable of inhibiting growth of viruses, wherein one or more of the least one antimicrobial agent is selected from copper.
Rios et al. (US 20100183814) teaches a friction rubber grip for the bottom of a sock (paragraph 0141), wherein the grip is provided with a bactericide or antiviral agents, one being AiGON (paragraph 0059 and 0114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the rubber grip feature of Johnson with an anti-viral agent as taught by Rios et al., since the rubber grip feature of Johnson provided with an anti-viral agent would provide a grip feature that protects against viruses.
Hendricks et al. by AgION details an antimicrobial agent that is a gram positive bactericide or an antiviral capable of inhibiting growth of viruses, wherein one or more of the least one antimicrobial agent is selected from copper (column 1, lines 6-13 and 17-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the antimicrobial agent of Jonson and Rois with the antimicrobial agent as taught by Hendricks, since the antimicrobial agent of Johnson and Rois provided as a gram positive copper would provide both an antiviral and antibacterial agent to protect from viruses and bacteria.
In regard to claim 2, Johnson teaches wherein the at least one grip feature comprises one grip feature or a plurality of grip features (grip segments: 24, Figures 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 3, Johnson teaches further comprising at least one grip feature presented on the dorsal face (see grip segments: 24 in figures 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 4, Johnson teaches wherein the at least one grip feature is bonded to the surface contact face (paragraph 0029).
In regard to claim 5, Johnson teaches wherein the at least one grip feature is presented on at least one of a heel portion, a plantar portion, and a lateral portion of the tubular sock body when donned (see grip segments: 24 in figures 1 and 2).
In regard to claim 8, the combined references teach wherein one or more of the at least one agent is selected from silver, copper, tin, nickel, zinc, sodium, or their cations (Hendricks: paragraph column 1, lines 3-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the antimicrobial agent of Jonson and Rois with the copper antimicrobial as agent as taught by Hendricks, since the antimicrobial agent of Johnson and Rois provided as a gram positive copper would provide both an antiviral and antibacterial agent to protect from viruses and bacteria.
In regard to claim 14, Johnson teaches a sock or shoe cover comprising: a sock body (sock: 10) comprising a tubular body a closed toe end (closed toe end), a heel area (heel area), and a foot or shoe receiving opening (opening 20), a first grip portion of a plurality of grip features (grip segments: 24, paragraph 0029); and at least one antimicrobial agent distributed, dispersed or dissolved in at least some of the plurality of grip features (paragraphs 0030-0031). It is noted that the sock body being knitted is a product by process limitation (see MPEP 2113), therefore, the method of making the sock of the prior art is not germane to patentability of the prior art final sock product taught by the prior art. Johnson teaches the tubular sock final garment sock structure (see figure 2-3).
However, Johnson fails to teach the agent being a bactericide or an antiviral capable of inhibiting growth of viruses, wherein one or more of the least one antimicrobial agent is selected from copper.
Rios et al. (US 20100183814) teaches a friction rubber grip for the bottom of a sock (paragraph 0141), wherein the grip is provided with a bactericide or antiviral agents, one being AiGON (paragraph 0059 and 0114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the rubber grip feature of Johnson with an anti-viral agent as taught by Rios et al., since the rubber grip feature of Johnson provided with an anti-viral agent would provide a grip feature that protects against viruses.
Hendricks et al. by AiGON details an antimicrobial agent that is a gram positive bactericide or an antiviral capable of inhibiting growth of viruses, wherein one or more of the least one antimicrobial agent is selected from copper (column 1, lines 6-13 and 17-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the antimicrobial agent of Jonson and Rois with the antimicrobial as agent as taught by Hendricks, since the antimicrobial agent of Johnson and Rois provided as a gram positive copper would provide both an antiviral and antibacterial agent to protect from viruses and bacteria.
In regard to claim 21, Johnson teaches a sock (sock: 10) or shoe cover comprising: a tubular sock body comprising a body (see figures 1 and 2), a closed end (see closed end), an opposing open foot-receiving end (opposing end of sock from closed end: figures 1 and 2), a dorsal face (top of sock: figures 1 and 2), and a surface contact face (bottom of sock: figures 1 and 2); at least one grip feature presented on at least the surface contact face (grip segments: 24, figures 1 and 2; paragraph 0029); and at least one antimicrobial agent distributed, dispersed, or dissolved in at least one grip feature (paragraph 0030 and 0031). It is noted that the sock body being knitted is a product by process limitation (see MPEP 2113), therefore, the method of making the sock of the prior art is not germane to patentability of the prior art final sock product taught by the prior art. Johnson teaches the tubular sock final garment sock structure (see figure 2-3).
However, Johnson fails to teach wherein the at least one inorganic antimicrobial agent comprises copper or copper cations; and a coating present on at least a portion of the knitted tubular sock body, the at least one grip feature, or both, the coating comprising at least one organic antimicrobial agent.
Rios et al. (US 20100183814) teaches a friction rubber grip for the bottom of a sock (paragraph 0141), wherein the grip is provided with a bactericide or antiviral agents, one being AiGON (paragraph 0059 and 0114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the rubber grip feature of Johnson with an anti-viral agent as taught by Rios et al., since the rubber grip feature of Johnson provided with an anti-viral agent would provide a grip feature that protects against viruses.
Hendricks et al. by AiGON details an inorganic antimicrobial agent that is a gram positive bactericide or an antiviral capable of inhibiting growth of viruses, wherein one or more of the least one antimicrobial agent is selected from copper (column 1, lines 6-13 and 17-26, copper is inorganic). Further, Hendricks et al. teaches a coating applied to fabric comprising at least one organic antimicrobial agent (column 4, lines 47-67 through column 5, lines 1-9 and column 6, lines 55-67 through column 7, lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the antimicrobial agent of Jonson and Rois with the antimicrobial as agent as taught by Hendricks, since the antimicrobial agent of Johnson and Rois provided as a gram positive copper would provide both an antiviral and antibacterial agent to protect from viruses and bacteria. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the fabric of the sock of Johnson and Rois with the antimicrobial fabric coating as taught by Hendricks et al., since the fabric of the sock of Johnson provided with the antimicrobial agent of Hendricks et al. would provide a sock fabric body that protects against viruses and bacteria.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2014/0223630), Rios et al. (US 2010/0183814) and Hendricks et al. (US 7,754,625) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al. (US 6,979,491).
Johnson, Rios et al., and Hendricks teach a sock garment with friction grip as described above in claim 1. However, Johnson, Rios et al. and Hendricks et al. fail to teach further comprising an antimicrobial yarn and comprising a sock body antimicrobial agent, the sock body antimicrobial agent being integral with a material forming the tubular sock body.
In regard to claim 10, Yan et al. teaches a sock garment composed of an antimicrobial yarn (see abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the sock yarn forming the sock of Johnson, Rois et al. and Hendricks et al. to be an antimicrobial yarn as taught by Yan et al., since the sock yarn forming the sock of Johnson being antimicrobial would provide a sock that has antimicrobial properties embedded in the yarn making up the sock, keeping bacteria at bay.
In regard to claim 11, Johnson teaches wherein the grip feature is selected from homopolymers or copolymers comprising poly ethylene vinyl acetate, poly vinyl chloride, polyurethane, synthetic or natural rubber, styrene-butadiene, and isoprene (paragraph 0029).
In regard to claim 13, Yan et al. teaches a sock garment wherein the sock body has an antimicrobial agent, the sock body antimicrobial agent being integral with a material forming the tubular sock body (see abstract).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the sock yarn forming the sock of Johnson, Rois et al. and Hendricks et al. to be an antimicrobial yarn as taught by Yan et al., since the sock yarn forming the sock of Johnson being antimicrobial would provide a sock that has antimicrobial properties embedded in the yarn making up the sock, keeping bacteria at bay.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Johnson in view of Rois et al. uses hindsight reasoning to combine.
In KSR, the Supreme Court indicated that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).Here, Johnson teaches a sock with anti-slip grip features and Rois et al. teaches an anti-slip grip feature with added additive agents includes antimicrobials and teaches the user of the anti-slip grip on a sock. Here we are taking the anti-slip grip teaching of Johnson and using the additives to an anti-slip grip features as taught by Rois et al., which both in the same field of applicant’s invention anti-grip features that can be applied to garments including socks.
Applicant argues that Rois et al. fails to teach an anti-microbial agent as claimed.
Hendricks has been brought into the rejection to teach the antimicrobial agent being copper as detailed above in the office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Agion (US 7, 645,824) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
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
