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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 corresponding to claims 1-23 and 32 in the reply filed on August 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 14, and 24-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 14, and 32 should be rewritten to be formatted in a more readable way, such that the limitations and structures are more distinctly and clearly written, for example to show a clear delineation of the preamble from the body of the claims. Examiner notes Applicant should look at the prior art on the PTO-892 and how the claim language in the prior art is written as examples. Examiner has organized the limitations into a more readable format in the rejection below, but further organization through the cleanup of superfluous language should also be made.
Claim 1 recites ‘at least sensor’ which should read ‘at least one sensor’.
Claim 12 recites ‘claim 4,,’ which should read ‘claim 4,’
Claims 24-31 and 33 are objected to since they are identified as being withdrawn while simultaneously having all limitations cancelled. It is unclear if the claims are meant to be cancelled or withdrawn. For examination they will be treated as withdrawn as Applicant’s restriction response appears to indicate they are meant to be withdrawn not cancelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-‘an energy storage device’ in claim 1 interpreted to be a battery per the specification or equivalents thereof
-‘a time and date stamper’ in claim 2
-‘a charging module’ in claim 11 interpreted to be magnetic induction charger or a USB charger per the specification or equivalents thereof
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-23 and 32 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dock" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the insole" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one insole’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one sensor’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 1 recites ‘an energy storage device’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the magnet or magnetic material" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one magnet or magnetic material’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 1 recites ‘at least one magnet or magnetic material’ twice in the claim, making it unclear if they refer to the same element or not. Examiner notes for the purposes of examination the initial recitation will be read as ‘at least one insole magnet or magnetic material’ and the latter recitation will be read as ‘at least one dock magnet or magnetic material’.
Claim 1 recites ‘an electronic communicator’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. Examiner notes for the purposes of examination the initial recitation will be read as “an insole electronic communicator” and the latter recitation will be read as “a dock electronic communicator”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the insole circuitry". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the circuitry’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 1 recites ‘a computer’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the insole" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one insole’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 2 limitation “’time and date stamper” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No clear structure is every provided for this term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the insole" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one insole’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sensor" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one sensor’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 4 recites ‘wherein there are at least two insoles’ and ‘a first insole’ and ‘a second insole’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘at least one insole’ making it unclear if the insoles recited in claim 4 are part of the ‘at least one insole’ as recited in claim 1 or not. For examination purposes the insoles recited in claim 4 will be treated as being part of ‘at least one insole’ of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites ‘wherein there are at least two docks’ and ‘a first dock’ and ‘a second dock’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘at least one dock’ making it unclear if the insoles recited in claim 5 are part of the ‘at least one dock’ as recited in claim 1 or not. For examination purposes the docks recited in claim 5 will be treated as being part of ‘at least one dock’ of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second dock" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this should read ‘a second dock’.
Claim 5 recites ‘a magnetic attraction’ multiple times in the claim and is dependent back to claim 4 which recites the same making it unclear if all recitations refer to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as different.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first insole electronic communicator" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second insole electronic communicator" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first dock electronic communicator" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second dock electronic communicator" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the docks" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this will be treated as ‘the at least one dock’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the computing device" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the docks" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this will be treated as ‘the at least one dock’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the data set" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the docks" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this will be treated as ‘the at least one dock’.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the chargers" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the insoles" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this will be treated as ‘the at least one insole’.
Claim 11 recites ‘a charging module’ which in light of the 112b can be a magnetic induction charger, Claim 11 is also dependent on claim 1 which recites ‘dock including at least one magnet or magnetic material for providing a magnetic field’. Therefore it is unclear if the charging module can refer to the magnet or magnetic material of claim 1 or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the insoles" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this will be treated as ‘the at least one insole’.
Claim 12 recites ‘the insoles include the energy storage device’ making it unclear how multiple insoles can comprise a singular energy storage device. For examination purposes it will be treated as if the energy storage device is in an insole.
Claim 13 recites ‘wherein there are a plurality of first insoles’ and ‘a plurality of second insoles’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘at least one insole’ making it unclear if the insoles recited in claim 13 are part of the ‘at least one insole’ as recited in claim 1 or not. For examination purposes the insoles recited in claim 13 will be treated as being part of ‘at least one insole’ of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites ‘a plurality of docks’ and is dependent back to claim 1 which recites ‘at least one dock’ making it unclear if the insoles recited in claim 13 are part of the ‘at least one dock’ as recited in claim 1 or not. For examination purposes the docks recited in claim 5 will be treated as being part of ‘at least one dock’ of claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the dock" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the insole" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one insole’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 14 recites ‘an energy storage device’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sensor" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one sensor’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 14 recites ‘an electronic communicator’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. Examiner notes for the purposes of examination the initial recitation will be read as “an insole electronic communicator” and the latter recitation will be read as “a dock electronic communicator”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electronic communicators" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites ‘the electronic communicators are a wireless interface’ making it unclear how multiple elements are now a single element. For examination purposes in light of the 112s to claim 14 this will be read as ‘each of the insole electronic communicator and the dock electronic communicator are a wireless interface’.
The term “discrete” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “discrete” 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.
Claim 16 recites ‘ ‘a first insole’ and ‘a second insole’ and is dependent back to claim 14 which recites ‘at least one insole’ making it unclear if the insoles recited in claim 16 are part of the ‘at least one insole’ as recited in claim 14 or not. For examination purposes the insoles recited in claim 16 will be treated as being part of ‘at least one insole’ of claim 14.
Claim 16 recites ‘each insole’ and it is unclear what this refers to. The ‘first insole’, the ‘second insole’ or the ‘at least one insole’. For examination purposes it will be treated as ‘each of the at least one insole’.
Claim 17 recites ‘each insole’ and it is unclear what this refers to. The ‘first insole’, the ‘second insole’ or the ‘at least one insole’. For examination purposes it will be treated as ‘each of the at least one insole’.
The term “discrete” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “discrete” 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the dock" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the insole" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one insole’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the dock" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the dock" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the dock" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 20 recites ‘a computing device’ and is dependent back to claim 14 which recites ‘a computer’ making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the dock" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one dock’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the insole" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one insole’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim 32 recites ‘an energy storage device’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the sensor" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes this will be interpreted as ‘the at least one sensor’ and should be amended to recite that as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 14-17, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haslacher et al. (US 2015/0237126).
Regarding claim 1, Haslacher teaches a system (Abstract) comprising
at least one dock, the dock for use with a computer (Paragraph 0005; ‘The shoe may be recharged via a docking or charging station. The docking station may download data from the shoe, and upload the data to a cloud-based application. The cloud application may act as a social platform allowing the user to communicate his or her accomplishments with others, thus encouraging fitness.’; Further see Paragraph 0038), and
at least one insole (Figures 1A-1C; a shoe has an insole), the insole for use with an energy storage device (Paragraphs 0028-0029; power source 220), the insole including:
circuitry, which includes a memory, a processor, the processor under control of the memory (Paragraphs 0020-0025; ‘Circuitry 200 includes a bus 205 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and processor(s) 215 coupled to bus 205 for processing information.’ And ‘Circuitry 200 further includes memory 230’ And ‘Memory 230 stores software modules that provide functionality when executed by processor(s) 215.’), and
a switch, the switch under control of the processor (Paragraph 0019);
at least sensor which is at least one of a motion sensor and a pressure sensor, the sensor in electronic communication with the processor (Paragraphs 0025-0028; ‘Sensor(s) 225 may also be referred to as a motion sensor(s)’ and ‘sensor(s) 225 may be pressure sensor(s)’);
at least one magnet or magnetic material which is in electronic communication with the processor (Paragraph 0039-0040; “the magnetic device of charging zone 320 and the magnetic device of the shoe”);
a charger for electrical communication with an energy storage device (Paragraph 0039-0040; “charging station 300 may charge the shoe via induction based technology.”);
an electronic communicator, which is in electronic communication with the circuitry and is configured for electronic communication with the dock (Paragraphs 0038-0040; “the coils in the shoe and the coils in charging station 300 generate a magnetic effect allowing data…to be exchanged”); and
a substrate, which retains the circuitry, the sensor, the magnet or magnetic material, the charger and the electronic communicator (Figures 1A-1C; the shoe; Paragraph 0016),
the dock including at least one magnet or magnetic material, for providing a magnetic field between the insole and the dock (Paragraphs 0038-0040 and 0043-0048; “the magnetic device of charging zone 320 and the magnetic device of the shoe”) and
an electronic communicator for electronic communication with the insole circuitry and for electronic communication with a computer (Paragraph 0038-0040 and 0043-0048; “may also download data from the shoe, and update the data to a central database.”; “circuitry 400 includes a communication unit 410 to connect to a central server (not shown) and/or shoe (not shown).“).
Regarding claim 2, Haslacher teaches wherein the insole further comprises a time and date stamper, which is retained by the substrate and is in electronic communication with the memory and the processor (Paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 3, Haslacher teaches wherein the memory of the insole is configured to store data from the sensor as a data set (Paragraphs 0036 and 0048).
Regarding claim 14, Haslacher teaches a system for collecting, storing and analyzing movement data associated with physical activity (Abstract), the system comprising
at least one dock (Paragraph 0005; ‘The shoe may be recharged via a docking or charging station. The docking station may download data from the shoe, and upload the data to a cloud-based application. The cloud application may act as a social platform allowing the user to communicate his or her accomplishments with others, thus encouraging fitness.’; Further see Paragraph 0038), and
at least one insole (Figures 1A-1C; a shoe has an insole), the insole for use with an energy storage device (Paragraphs 0028-0029; power source 220), the insole including:
circuitry, which includes a memory, a processor, the processor under control of the memory (Paragraphs 0020-0025; ‘Circuitry 200 includes a bus 205 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and processor(s) 215 coupled to bus 205 for processing information.’ And ‘Circuitry 200 further includes memory 230’ And ‘Memory 230 stores software modules that provide functionality when executed by processor(s) 215.’);
at least one sensor, which is at least one of a motion sensor and a pressure sensor and which is in electronic communication with the processor (Paragraphs 0025-0028; ‘Sensor(s) 225 may also be referred to as a motion sensor(s)’ and ‘sensor(s) 225 may be pressure sensor(s)’);
a charger for electrical communication with an energy storage device (Paragraph 0039-0040; “charging station 300 is configured to charge the power source of the shoe”);
an electronic communicator, which is in electronic communication with the circuitry and is configured for electronic communication with the dock (Paragraphs 0038-0040; “charging station 300 is configured to charge the power source of the shoe and/or download data from the shoe.”); and
a substrate, which retains the circuitry, the sensor, the charger and the electronic communicator (Figures 1A-1C; the shoe; Paragraph 0016),
the dock including an electronic communicator for electronic communication with the insole and for electronic communication with a computer (Paragraph 0038-0040 and 0043-0048; Paragraph 0038-0040 and 0043-0048; “may also download data from the shoe, and update the data to a central database.”; “circuitry 400 includes a communication unit 410 to connect to a central server (not shown) and/or shoe (not shown).“).
wherein the memory is:
i) configured to instruct the processor to collect data from the sensor to provide a data set (Paragraphs 0036 and 0048; “Charging station 300 may also download data from the shoe, and update the data to a central database.”).
configured to store the data set; and configured to instruct the processor to download the data set to the dock (Paragraphs 0036, 0038-0040, and 0048; “Charging station 300 may also download data from the shoe, and update the data to a central database.”).
Regarding claim 15, Haslacher teaches wherein the electronic communicators are a wireless interface (Paragraphs 0039-0040; transfer of data wirelessly).
Regarding claim 16, Haslacher teaches the system comprising at least a first insole and a second insole (Paragraphs 0035-0041; pair of shoes means there would be at least two insoles), the wireless interface of each insole having a discrete data channel (Paragraphs 0035-0041; pair of shoes means there would be at least two insoles each insole having the processor and memory as disclosed by Haslacher for the citations provided for claim 14 thus constituting discrete data channels).
Regarding claim 17, Haslacher teaches wherein the memory is further configured to send the data set periodically during data collection via the discrete data channel of each insole to the dock (Paragraphs 0035-0041).
Regarding claim 32, Haslacher teaches a system (Abstract) comprising
at least one dock, the dock for use with a computer (Paragraph 0005; ‘The shoe may be recharged via a docking or charging station. The docking station may download data from the shoe, and upload the data to a cloud-based application. The cloud application may act as a social platform allowing the user to communicate his or her accomplishments with others, thus encouraging fitness.’; Further see Paragraph 0038), and
at least one insole (Figures 1A-1C; a shoe has an insole), the insole for use with an energy storage device (Paragraphs 0028-0029; power source 220), the insole including:
circuitry, which includes a memory, a processor, the processor under control of the memory (Paragraphs 0020-0025; ‘Circuitry 200 includes a bus 205 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and processor(s) 215 coupled to bus 205 for processing information.’ And ‘Circuitry 200 further includes memory 230’ And ‘Memory 230 stores software modules that provide functionality when executed by processor(s) 215.’), and
a switch, the switch under control of the processor (Paragraph 0019);
at least sensor which is at least one of a motion sensor and a pressure sensor, the sensor in electronic communication with the processor (Paragraphs 0025-0028; ‘Sensor(s) 225 may also be referred to as a motion sensor(s)’ and ‘sensor(s) 225 may be pressure sensor(s)’);
a charger for electrical communication with an energy storage device (Paragraph 0039-0040; “charging station 300 may charge the shoe via induction based technology.”); and
a substrate, which retains the circuitry, the sensor and the charger (Figures 1A-1C; the shoe; Paragraph 0016),
wherein when the insole is located on the dock, there is a magnetic field between the insole and the dock and a communication interface between the insole and the dock and when the insole is removed from the dock, the magnetic field is broken (Paragraphs 0038-0040 and 0043-0048; “For example, when the shoes are placed on charging zone 320, the magnetic device of charging zone 320 and the magnetic device of the shoe cause charging station 300 to charge, using induction for example, the power source on the shoe, as well as download any data from the shoe.” and “For example, when the pressure sensor detects that the shoes are placed within charging zone 325, a communication unit (not shown) may automatically connect with the communication unit of the shoe, and begin downloading the data. The communication unit of the charging station 300 may connect to the communication unit of the shoe via Bluetooth™ Wi-Fi, or physical connection. “).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslacher et al. (US 2015/0237126) in view of Moorman et al. (US 2014/0215860).
Regarding claim 4, Haslacher teaches a pair of shoes thus constituting multiple insoles (Paragraph 0035) but is silent having multiple insoles with multiple polarities. Moorman teaches wherein there are at least two insoles, a first insole including a first polarity magnet, and a second insole including a second polarity magnet, the first polarity magnet and the second polarity magnet for providing a magnetic attraction (Paragraphs 0018-0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Moorman because it allows for the soles to the complementary and can better align them (Paragraph 0018 of Moorman).
Regarding claim 5, Haslacher is silent having multiple docks with multiple polarities. Moorman teaches wherein there are at least two docks, a first dock including a first polarity dock magnet and the second dock including a second polarity dock magnet, the first polarity magnet and the second polarity dock magnet providing a magnetic attraction and the second polarity magnet and the first polarity dock magnet for providing a magnetic attraction (Paragraphs 0018-0022 and 0025; Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Moorman because it allows for the soles to the complementary and can better align them as well as reduce chances of mixing and mismatching footwear items (Paragraphs 0018 and 0022 of Moorman).
Regarding claim 12, Haslacher teaches wherein the insoles include the energy storage device (Paragraphs 0028-0029; power source 220).
Regarding claim 18, Haslacher teaches a pair of shoes thus constituting multiple insoles (Paragraph 0035) but is silent having multiple insoles/docks with multiple polarities. Moorman teaches wherein the insole further includes a first polarity magnet or a magnetic material and the dock includes a second polarity magnet or a magnetic material, the first polarity magnet or magnetic material and the second polarity magnet or magnetic material for providing a magnetic attraction (Paragraphs 0018-0022 and 0025; Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Moorman because it allows for the soles to the complementary and can better align them as well as reduce chances of mixing and mismatching footwear items (Paragraphs 0018 and 0022 of Moorman).
Regarding claim 19, Haslacher teaches wherein the memory is configured to instruct the processor, in response to the magnetic attraction, to download the data set to the dock (Paragraphs 0039-0040; transfer of data wirelessly).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslacher et al. (US 2015/0237126) in view of Moorman et al. (US 2014/0215860) in further view of Pizzuto (US 2009/0058575).
Regarding claim 6, Haslacher is silent on wherein the memory is configured to instruct the processor, in response to a loss of the magnetic attraction, to activate the circuitry with the switch. Pizzuto discloses a medical monitoring device (Paragraph 0011) with a magnetic switch which changes active state based on the effects of a magnet which works in condition with a processor and memory thus teaching wherein the memory is configured to instruct the processor, in response to a loss of the magnetic attraction, to activate the circuitry with the switch (Paragraphs 0016-0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Pizzuto because Pizzuto teaches this technology as being known in the art (Paragraphs 0003-0006 of Pizzuto) and it would aid in activation of a medical monitoring device (Paragraph 0007 of Pizzuto).
Claim(s) 7-11, 13, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslacher et al. (US 2015/0237126) in view of Moorman et al. (US 2014/0215860) in further view of Mcbrearty et al. (US 2012/0254934).
Regarding claim 7, Haslacher is silent on the data channels. Mcbrearty teaches wherein the first insole electronic communicator is a first wireless antenna or transceiver with a first data channel, the second insole electronic communicator is a second wireless antenna or transceiver with a second data channel and the first dock electronic communicator and the second dock electronic communicator are wireless transceivers (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0097, 0116, and 0180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 8, Haslacher is silent on the kiosk. Mcbrearty teaches further comprising a kiosk, the kiosk housing the docks (Paragraph 0180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 9, Haslacher is silent on the kiosk. Mcbrearty teaches wherein the kiosk includes the computing device, the computing device in electronic communication with the docks (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0097, 0116, and 0180-0184). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 10, Haslacher is silent on the computing device and memory for the dock for analyzing the data. Mcbrearty teaches wherein the computer is configured to store and analyze the data set to provide an analyzed data set (Paragraph 0092 and 0180-0184). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 11, Haslacher is silent on the multiple docks. Mcbrearty teaches wherein the docks each include a charging module for electrical communication with the chargers of the insoles. (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0097, 0116, and 0180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 13, Haslacher teaches a pair of shoes thus constituting multiple insoles (Paragraph 0035) but is silent on wherein there are a plurality of first insoles, a plurality of second insoles, and a plurality of docks. Mcbrearty teaches a plurality of docks and corresponding plurality of monitors (Paragraph 0180). Modifying Haslacher to have a plurality of insoles and docks would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. MPEP 2144.04(VI-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 20, Haslacher is silent on the computing device for the dock. Mcbearty teaches further comprising a computing device, the computing device including a device processor and a device memory, the computing device in electronic communication with the dock (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0097, 0116, and 0180-0184). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 21, Haslacher is silent on the computing device and memory for the dock for analyzing the data. Mcbearty teaches wherein the device memory is configured to instruct the device processor to analyze the data set to provide an analyzed data set (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0097, 0116, and 0180-0184). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Regarding claim 22, Haslacher is silent on the computing device and memory for the dock. Mcbearty teaches wherein the device memory is configured to store the analyzed data set (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0097, 0116, and 0180-0184). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and to be able to centrally sync all data from the devices together (Paragraph 0184 of Mcbrearty).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haslacher et al. (US 2015/0237126) in view of Moorman et al. (US 2014/0215860) and Mcbrearty et al. (US 2012/0254934) and in further view of Dibenedetto et al. (US 2016/0180440).
Regarding claim 23, Haslacher is silent on the computing device and memory for the dock. Mcbearty teaches wherein the device memory is configured to instruct the processor to develop a predictive model based on the analyzed data set (Paragraphs 0091-0094, 0180-0181, and 0193-0194; use of formulas and algorithms thus constituting a predictive model that is developed by the use of the data within said formulas/algorithms). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher with Mcbrearty because it would enable more effective monitoring of a user’s activity (Paragraph 0005 of Mcbrearty) and allows for prediction of trends which can aid in future monitoring sessions (Paragraph 0194 of Mcbrearty). Should Mcbrearty be found not specific enough on the development of the predictive model. Dibenedetto teaches developing a predictive model based on analyzed data (Paragraphs 0244-0248). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Haslacher in view of Mcbrearty with Dibenedetto because it would aid in better predicting the relationship between different gait characteristics (Paragraph 0249 of Dibenedetto).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2016/0321951).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM 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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791