DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/09/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed on 10/09/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1 and 5-20 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 113520375) in further view of Peterson (US 11304608), Wu (CN 113349762), and Grygorowicz (US 20170014297). Citations to CN 113520375 and CN 113349762 will refer to the English Machine Translations that accompany this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cao teaches a rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device sleeved on a shoe body, comprising a shoe cover body ([0043]: “the plantar pressure collection device 01 may be composed of an ordinary cotton insole 11 and a leather shoe 12 as a basic structure. The ordinary cotton insole 11 and the leather shoe 12 are fixedly connected, and three pressure sensors are arranged on the ordinary cotton insole 11”) and a data processing communication unit ([0046]: “the heel pressure sensor 13, the sole pressure sensor 14 and the toe pressure sensor 15 may be connected to the central processing unit 06. The central processing unit 06 can convert the output resistance information in the thin film pressure sensor into pressure information.”), wherein the shoe cover body comprises a toe pressure detection part, a sole pressure detection part and a heel pressure detection part ([0043]: “The three pressure sensors include a heel pressure sensor 13, a sole pressure sensor 14 and a toe pressure sensor 15, which are used to collect pressure information of the heel, sole and toe of the target object (the object wearing the plantar pressure collection device 01) in contact with the ground during walking.”).
However, Cao does not teach a front end of the toe pressure detection part is provided with a first limit structure for containing and limiting a front end of the shoe body, wherein the first limit structure comprises a first limit cover facing an opening at a side of the sole pressure detection part, and a top of an inner wall of the first limit cover is provided with a first limit surface for limiting the shoe body.
Wu discloses a foot sole force measuring system. Specifically, Wu teaches a front end of the toe pressure detection part is provided with a first limit structure for containing and limiting a front end of the shoe body, wherein the first limit structure comprises a first limit cover facing an opening at a side of the sole pressure detection part, and a top of an inner wall of the first limit cover is provided with a first limit surface for limiting the shoe body (Abstract: “The invention comprises a sole force measuring unit, a foot positioning device, a forefoot mounting plate and a rear foot mounting plate”; Figures 2 and 3. The first limit structure is the foot tip baffle (6) and the upper cover plate (2), the first limit cover is the upper cover plate, and the first limit surface is the foot tip baffle.). Cao and Wu are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to measure the force of a user’s foot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit structure from Wu into the device from Cao as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
The Cao/Wu combination teaches a rear end of the toe pressure detection part is connected with a front end of the sole pressure detection part (Cao, Fig. 2).
However, the Cao/Wu combination does not teach a plurality of first pressure detection components are installed on the toe pressure detection part.
Peterson discloses a method and apparatus for monitoring foot inflammation. Specifically, Peterson teaches a plurality of first pressure detection components are installed on the toe pressure detection part (Column 11, lines 11-13: “Other embodiments may use pressure sensors to form a pressure map of the foot 10”). Cao, Wu, and Peterson are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used to measure the force of a user’s foot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the plurality of pressure sensors from Peterson into the device from the Cao/Wu combination as it allows the combination to use multiple pressure sensors instead of just one, which can provide more information to the analysis to provide a more accurate and comprehensive result.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson combination does not teach a rear end of the sole pressure detection part is connected with a front end of the heel pressure detection part through a retractable component, wherein the retractable component is an elastic element, the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first mounting groove, the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second mounting groove, a front end of the elastic element is at least partially installed in the first mounting groove and a rear end thereof is at least partially installed in the second mounting groove.
Wu teaches a rear end of the sole pressure detection part is connected with a front end of the heel pressure detection part through a retractable component ([0082]: “A spring with suitable stiffness can be added at the rear end opening of the hook on the lower end surface of the rear sole mounting plate and the guide rail connecting plate as a longitudinal adjustment and limiting mechanism to achieve semi-automation of the longitudinal limiting mechanism.”), wherein the retractable component is an elastic element, the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first mounting groove, the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second mounting groove, a front end of the elastic element is at least partially installed in the first mounting groove and a rear end thereof is at least partially installed in the second mounting groove (Wu, Claim 1: “spring steel plate 9”; Claim 1: “the groove of the guide rail connecting plate (11) cooperates with the photoelectric guide rail (12); the spring steel connecting plate (10) is fixedly mounted on the front end of the guide rail connecting plate (11); one end of the spring steel plate (9) is connected to the upper end surface of the spring steel connecting plate (10); the other end of the spring steel plate (9) is connected to the lower end surface of the rear part of the front sole mounting plate (7); the toe baffle (6) is fixedly connected to the front end of the front sole mounting plate (7); and the heel baffle (15) is fixedly connected to the rear end of the rear sole mounting plate (14).”; Figures 2 and 3. The retractable component is the spring steel plate and the spring steel connecting plate, the first mounting groove is the groove of the guide rail connecting plate, and the second mounting groove is the photoelectric guide rail.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the retractable component from Wu into the device from the Cao/Wu/Peterson combination as it allows the device to change size depending on the user’s foot size, which allows the device to be used on different people.
The Cao/Wu/Peterson combination teaches a plurality of second pressure detection components are installed on the sole pressure detection part (Peterson, Column 11, lines 11-13: “Other embodiments may use pressure sensors to form a pressure map of the foot 10”);
a rear end of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit structure for abutting against a rear end of the shoe body (Wu, Abstract: “The invention comprises a sole force measuring unit, a foot positioning device, a forefoot mounting plate and a rear foot mounting plate”; Figures 2 and 3. The second limit structure is the heel baffle (15).), and a plurality of third pressure detection components are installed on the heel pressure detection part (Column 11, lines 11-13: “Other embodiments may use pressure sensors to form a pressure map of the foot 10”).
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson combination does not teach wherein a lower part of the second limit structure is provided with an avoidance hole, which is used to accommodate partial structure of the rear end of the shoe body.
Grygorowicz discloses a slipper for fitting over a shoe. Specifically, Grygorowicz teaches wherein a lower part of the second limit structure is provided with an avoidance hole, which is used to accommodate partial structure of the rear end of the shoe body (Fig. 2A, slipper (1) and heel of the shoe (8)). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Grygorowicz are analogous arts as they are all devices that secure to a user’s foot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the avoidance hole from Grygorowicz as the hole allows for a user’s shoe to be placed in to accommodate for the space it takes up and creates a better fit for the shoe.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach the data processing communication unit is installed on the shoe cover body.
Peterson teaches the data processing communication unit is installed on the body (Column 7, lines 4-11: “The rigid base 22 positioned between the foam 32 and the non-skid base 24 provides rigidity to the overall structure. In addition, the rigid base 22 is contoured to receive a motherboard 34, a battery pack 36, a circuit housing 38, and additional circuit components that provide further functionality. For example, the motherboard 34 may contain integrated circuits and microprocessors that control the functionality of the platform 16.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the data processing communication unit being installed on the body from Peterson into the device from the Cao/Wu/Peterson combination as it allows the device to process information within itself and not require a separate device to process the data and communicate the results.
The Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the data processing communication unit is connected with the first pressure detection components, the second pressure detection components, the third pressure detection components and an external data receiving terminal (Cao, [0046]: “the heel pressure sensor 13 , the sole pressure sensor 14 and the toe pressure sensor 15 may be connected to the central processing unit 06”; [0115]: “The communication interface 44 uses any transceiver or other device for communicating with other devices or communication networks”).
Regarding claim 15, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body.
Wu teaches wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body (Figure 2, reference characters 8 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit retaining wall from Wu into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
Regarding claim 16, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body.
Wu teaches wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body (Figure 2, reference characters 8 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit retaining wall from Wu into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
Regarding claim 17, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body.
Wu teaches wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body (Figure 2, reference characters 8 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit retaining wall from Wu into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riebe (US 20180213889).
Regarding claim 5, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the toe pressure detection part is connected with the sole pressure detection part through a connecting mechanism (Cao, Figure 2).
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does teach the connecting mechanism which is configured to enable an angle formed between the toe pressure detection part and the sole pressure detection part to be adjustable.
Riebe teaches an adjustable shoe and shoe base. Specifically, Riebe teaches the connecting mechanism which is configured to enable an angle formed between the toe pressure detection part and the sole pressure detection part to be adjustable ([0049]: “the fixing of the at least joint arrangement which connects the toe element with the respective adjacent sole element is performed in a manner so that the two effected sole elements can rotate relative to each other in spite of their fixation within a partial angle range”; [0046]: “The complementary angle of the angle which the foot surfaces of the toe element and of the other sole element enclosed with each other is at least 15°, advantageously at least 20°, further advantageously at least 25°.”; Figure 2; [0095]: “The toe element 6 and the center element 13 are connected with each other by a single link arrangement 8”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Riebe are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the connecting mechanism enabling an angle to be formed from Riebe into the device from the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the device to be adjustable based on the position of the user’s foot, which allows it to be more versatile and adjustable to the user’s foot. This allows the device to measure the pressure even if the user’s foot is not completely flat.
Regarding claim 6, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 5, wherein the toe pressure detection part is provided with two first connecting lugs spaced apart, each of the two first connecting lug is provided with a first mounting through hole, the sole pressure detection part is provided with a second connecting lug located between the two first connecting lugs, and the second connecting lug is provided with a second mounting through hole; and an end of the connecting bolt passes through the two first mounting through holes (Riebe, [0097]: “In the illustrated embodiment the link arrangement 8 which couples the toe element 6 and the center element 13 with each other are configured rotated about a vertical axis 36 of the shoe 1 and rotated against a longitudinal axis 5 of the shoe 1. This rotation has the consequence that the toe element 6 can rotate relative to the center element 13 about a rotation axis which is also rotated relative to the longitudinal axis of the shoe 1. The orientation or alignment of the link arrangement 8 or the associated rotation axis is ideally configured according to individual properties of a respective foot so that roll off properties of the shoe according to the invention are particularly convenient.”; [0099]: “In order to fixate the joint arrangement 8 which is arranged between the toe element 6 and the center element 13 a shoe 1 according to the invention can include a special arresting arrangement 37. As a matter of principle it is conceivable that the link device 8 when the shoe 1 is provided in its tall condition and also in its flat condition shall be fixated so that the joint arrangement couples the toe element 6 and the center element 13 with each other torque proof.”; Figs. 1-2).
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination is silent on what holds the two pieces together.
Peterson teaches wherein the connecting mechanism comprises a connecting bolt and a locking nut and the second mounting through hole and is locked by the locking nut (Column 7, lines 14-16: “The layers may be secured together using one or more of an adhesive, snaps, nuts, bolts, or other fastening devices.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the bolt and nut from Peterson into the device from the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination as the combination is silent on the type of connection used, and Peterson discloses a suitable connector in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 18, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 5.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination does not teach wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body.
Wu teaches wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body (Figure 2, reference characters 8 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit retaining wall from Wu into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
Regarding claim 19, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 6.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination does not teach wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body.
Wu teaches wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body (Figure 2, reference characters 8 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit retaining wall from Wu into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
Claims 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du (CN 208065167). Citations to CN 208065167 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding claim 7, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first pressure detection components, the second pressure detection components or the third pressure detection components are connected with the data processing communication unit (Cao, [0046]: “the heel pressure sensor 13, the sole pressure sensor 14 and the toe pressure sensor 15 may be connected to the central processing unit 06”).
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not explicitly teach the pressure detection component being connected through a connection line; and the toe pressure detection part is provided with a first wiring duct for the connection line to pass through, the sole pressure detection part is provided with a second wiring duct for the connection line to pass through, the heel pressure detection part is provided with a third wiring duct for the connection line to pass through, an outlet end of the first wiring duct is arranged opposite to an inlet end of the second wiring duct, and an outlet end of the second wiring duct is arranged opposite to an inlet end of the third wiring duct.
Du discloses a multifunctional foot-worn device. Specifically, Du teaches the pressure detection components being connected through a connection line; and the toe pressure detection part is provided with a first wiring duct for the connection line to pass through, the sole pressure detection part is provided with a second wiring duct for the connection line to pass through, the heel pressure detection part is provided with a third wiring duct for the connection line to pass through, an outlet end of the first wiring duct is arranged opposite to an inlet end of the second wiring duct, and an outlet end of the second wiring duct is arranged opposite to an inlet end of the third wiring duct ([0010]: “A multifunctional foot wear device, the foot wear device includes a shoe body or an insole, flexible pressure sensors are provided at the forefoot and the heel of the foot wear device, a flexible circuit board is provided at the arch of the foot of the foot wear device, a microprocessor and a storage module electrically connected to the microprocessor, a three-axis acceleration sensor, a three-axis gyroscope, a micro vibrator, a Bluetooth antenna and a rechargeable battery are provided on the flexible circuit board, and the flexible pressure sensors are electrically connected to the microprocessor through wires.”. It is clear that if there are wires connecting the different components, there are wiring ducts within each component with inlets and outlets.). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Du are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the connection line from Du into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as the combination is silent on the type of connection used, and Du discloses a suitable connection type in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 8, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 7.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination does not explicitly disclose wherein widths of the first wiring duct, the second wiring duct and the third wiring duct are greater than or equal to twice a radial dimension of the connection line, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widths of the wiring duct to be greater than or equal to twice a radial dimension of the connection line, since it would ensure the connection line can fit in the wiring duct and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any size radius that is larger than the connection line. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the wiring duct at this size, since a mere change in size of a component is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 7.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination does not teach wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body.
Wu teaches wherein each side of the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first limit retaining wall for limiting a side of the shoe body; and/or each side of the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second limit retaining wall for limiting the side of the shoe body (Figure 2, reference characters 8 and 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first limit retaining wall from Wu into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination as it allows the device to hold the shoe in place, which keeps it from moving and provides a more accurate measurement and result.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Linders (CN 108471946). Citations to CN 108471946 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding claim 9, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part.
Linders discloses a detection system for footwear. Specifically, Linders teaches wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part ([0164]: “a plurality of pressure sensors may be configured to measure pressure exerted by the foot at predetermined anatomical locations, such as the heel, medial and lateral midfoot, metatarsal heads, and toes”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Linders are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific regions with pressure sensors from Linders into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the combination to sense different, specific parts of the foot, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis and accurate result.
Regarding claim 10, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part.
Linders discloses a detection system for footwear. Specifically, Linders teaches wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part ([0164]: “a plurality of pressure sensors may be configured to measure pressure exerted by the foot at predetermined anatomical locations, such as the heel, medial and lateral midfoot, metatarsal heads, and toes”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Linders are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific regions with pressure sensors from Linders into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the combination to sense different, specific parts of the foot, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis and accurate result.
Regarding claim 11, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 1.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part.
Linders discloses a detection system for footwear. Specifically, Linders teaches wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part ([0164]: “a plurality of pressure sensors may be configured to measure pressure exerted by the foot at predetermined anatomical locations, such as the heel, medial and lateral midfoot, metatarsal heads, and toes”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Linders are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific regions with pressure sensors from Linders into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination as it allows the combination to sense different, specific parts of the foot, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis and accurate result.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Linders.
Regarding claim 12, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 5.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination does not teach wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part.
Linders discloses a detection system for footwear. Specifically, Linders teaches wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part ([0164]: “a plurality of pressure sensors may be configured to measure pressure exerted by the foot at predetermined anatomical locations, such as the heel, medial and lateral midfoot, metatarsal heads, and toes”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Linders are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific regions with pressure sensors from Linders into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination as it allows the combination to sense different, specific parts of the foot, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis and accurate result.
Regarding claim 13, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 6.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination does not teach wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part.
Linders discloses a detection system for footwear. Specifically, Linders teaches wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part ([0164]: “a plurality of pressure sensors may be configured to measure pressure exerted by the foot at predetermined anatomical locations, such as the heel, medial and lateral midfoot, metatarsal heads, and toes”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Linders are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific regions with pressure sensors from Linders into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Riebe combination as it allows the combination to sense different, specific parts of the foot, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis and accurate result.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Linders.
Regarding claim 14, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination teaches the rigidity-adjustable plantar pressure measuring device according to claim 7.
However, the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination does not teach wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part.
Linders discloses a detection system for footwear. Specifically, Linders teaches wherein the sole pressure detection part comprises a metatarsal region and a mid-foot region adjacent to each other in sequence along a direction away from the toe pressure detection part; a number of the second pressure detection components in the metatarsal region is less than that in the mid-foot region; and a number of the second pressure detection components in the mid-foot region is less than or equal to a number of the first pressure detection components in the toe pressure detection part and less than or equal to a number of the third pressure detection components in the heel pressure detection part ([0164]: “a plurality of pressure sensors may be configured to measure pressure exerted by the foot at predetermined anatomical locations, such as the heel, medial and lateral midfoot, metatarsal heads, and toes”). Cao, Wu, Peterson, and Linders are analogous arts as they are all related to devices used on shoes of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the specific regions with pressure sensors from Linders into the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz/Du combination as it allows the combination to sense different, specific parts of the foot, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis and accurate result.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the limitation of the data processing communication unit being installed on the shoe cover body, Applicant argues that Peterson does not teach this limitation. However, as stated in the 103 rejection above, Peterson teaches the communication unit being integrated into the measurement device (Peterson, Column 7, lines 4-11: “The rigid base 22 positioned between the foam 32 and the non-skid base 24 provides rigidity to the overall structure. In addition, the rigid base 22 is contoured to receive a motherboard 34, a battery pack 36, a circuit housing 38, and additional circuit components that provide further functionality. For example, the motherboard 34 may contain integrated circuits and microprocessors that control the functionality of the platform 16.”), which in combination with Cao and Wu, teaches on the limitation of the communication device being incorporated into the shoe cover body, as the shoe cover body is the measurement device of the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination. Additionally, Applicant argues that the Cao/Wu/Peterson/Grygorowicz combination does not teach the first limit structure comprising a first limit cover facing an opening at a side of the sole pressure detection part, and a top of an inner wall of the first limit cover is provided with a first limit surface for limiting the shoe body. However, as detailed in the 103 rejection above, Wu teaches on these limitation (Wu, Abstract: “The invention comprises a sole force measuring unit, a foot positioning device, a forefoot mounting plate and a rear foot mounting plate”; Figures 2 and 3. The first limit structure is the foot tip baffle (6) and the upper cover plate (2), the first limit cover is the upper cover plate, and the first limit surface is the foot tip baffle.). Additionally, Applicant argues that the combination does not teach the retractable component is an elastic element, the sole pressure detection part is provided with a first mounting groove, the heel pressure detection part is provided with a second mounting groove, a front end of the elastic element is at least partially installed in the first mounting groove and a rear end thereof is at least partially installed in the second mounting groove, however as detailed in the 103 rejection above, Wu teaches on these limitations (Wu, Claim 1: “spring steel plate 9”; Claim 1: “the groove of the guide rail connecting plate (11) cooperates with the photoelectric guide rail (12); the spring steel connecting plate (10) is fixedly mounted on the front end of the guide rail connecting plate (11); one end of the spring steel plate (9) is connected to the upper end surface of the spring steel connecting plate (10); the other end of the spring steel plate (9) is connected to the lower end surface of the rear part of the front sole mounting plate (7); the toe baffle (6) is fixedly connected to the front end of the front sole mounting plate (7); and the heel baffle (15) is fixedly connected to the rear end of the rear sole mounting plate (14).”; Figures 2 and 3. The retractable component is the spring steel plate and the spring steel connecting plate, the first mounting groove is the groove of the guide rail connecting plate, and the second mounting groove is the photoelectric guide rail.).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-20 with regards to the avoidance hole have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to the 103 rejections of claims 7 and 8, Applicant argues that Du does not teach on the wiring ducts, however as stated in the 103 rejection above, Du teaches the pressure sensors being connected through wires, and that it is clear that there are wiring ducts that the wires pass through (Du, [0010]: “A multifunctional foot wear device, the foot wear device includes a shoe body or an insole, flexible pressure sensors are provided at the forefoot and the heel of the foot wear device, a flexible circuit board is provided at the arch of the foot of the foot wear device, a microprocessor and a storage module electrically connected to the microprocessor, a three-axis acceleration sensor, a three-axis gyroscope, a micro vibrator, a Bluetooth antenna and a rechargeable battery are provided on the flexible circuit board, and the flexible pressure sensors are electrically connected to the microprocessor through wires.”. It is clear that if there are wires connecting the different components, there are wiring ducts within each component with inlets and outlets.). Applicant argues that Du does not teach the wiring ducts being in cooperation with a retractable component, however this limitation is not claimed, therefore is not required to be taught by Du. Additionally, Applicant argues that the width of wiring ducts from claim 8 was claimed to be obvious matter of design choice without any specific reasoning, however as provided in the 103 rejection above, the reasoning is provided that the invention would perform equally as well with any size radius that is larger than the connection line, therefore it would have been obvious and is a simple matter of design choice for the specific width.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791