DETAILED ACTION
for
INSOLE AND FOOT PRESSURE MEASURING ARRANGEMENT
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 03/28/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “strip-shaped supply line substrate and a connection socket as claimed in claim 26” as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: the abstract is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The “strip-shaped supply line substrate” does not have a reference number in the specification and is not described in regards to the embodiment descriptions.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Insole and Foot Pressure Measuring Arrangement, Has Pair Of Power Supply And Sensor Signal Lines Used For Forwarding Sensor Signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not provide support for the subject matter recited in claim 28.
The specification is textually silent regarding [piezoelectric type configured to converts movements of the foot of the wearer into electrical energy, or is of the thermoelectric type and configured to converts the body heat of the wearer into electrical current, or is in the form of a film solid-state battery or film solid- state rechargeable battery].
In addition, the figures do not explicitly illustrate the above subject matter claimed.
Claims 19 and 28 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.
In claim 19, the term “substantially” is indefinite because "relative terms render the claims indefinite. Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases “relatively shallow,” “of the order of,” “the order of about 5mm,” and “substantial portion” were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended.
In claim 28, the phrase “configured in such a way that it convert” is vague and a relative phrase that renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “in such a way” 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 appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “in such a way” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “in such a way” occur.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAN et al. [herein after Lan] (US 2011/0301504).
Regarding claims 16-17, Lan discloses an insole for a sports shoe, comprising: a flexible flat substrate (240), which is geometrically adapted to the inner contour of the sports shoe (Fig. 1); and a pressure sensor arrangement (260) which is fastened to the substrate (240) and consists of a plurality of flat pressure sensors (32 see annotated Fig. 3 below), each having a pair of power supply (28, see annotated Fig. 3 below) and sensor signal lines (Fig. 3) for supplying power (28) to the pressure sensors (32) and passing on the sensor signals to an external sensor signal transmission unit (227); four pressure sensors (Fig. 3) of the plurality of flat pressure sensors (32) are provided in the toe region (221) of the insole (240), one of which pressure sensors (32) is placed in the region of the big toe (221), two pressure sensors (33 & 34) are provided in the ball region (224), a pressure sensors (40) are provided in the region of the outside of the foot (39), and two pressure sensors (35 & 38) are provided in the heel
PNG
media_image1.png
610
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
region (224).
Lan fails to discloses the active area of each sensor being 2 cm2 or more and wherein the active area of the plurality of pressure sensors is in the range between 2.5 cm2 and 5 cm2.
The particular range/ size, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range/size of the sensors used by Prior Art for measuring pressure in the foot that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the type of measurements and or/ intended use, etc. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an insole for a sports shoe, to modify Lan, to include pressure sensors is in the range between 2.5 cm2 and 5 cm2, for the benefit of providing a device to provide a shoe which can provide feedback to accurately provide information regarding the stride timing and movement so as to improve their accuracy stride in walking or running.
Claims 18-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAN et al. [herein after Lan] (US 2011/0301504) in view of Everett et al. [herein after Everett] (WO 2021/092676).
PNG
media_image2.png
251
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 18-19, Lan further discloses the insole having a plurality of pressure sensors (36, 38 & 40) having a rectangular shape (Fig. 3).
Lan fails to explicitly discloses a plurality of pressure sensor with the same geometric shape and active area.
Everette discloses a plurality of pressure sensor (CP41) with the same geometric shape and active area. (see adjacent annotated Fig. 4).
In addition, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Everette further discloses two pressure sensors are arranged in the toe region (CP42), one of which pressure sensors extends over the contact area of at least two toes (see annotated Fig. 4 above), and; wherein three pressure sensors are arranged in the ball region (CP46), one of which pressure sensors is situated medially, another laterally and the third centrally between the two (see annotated Fig. 4 above); wherein one pressure sensor is arranged in the region of the outside of the foot substantially centrally over the longitudinal extent of the outside of the foot (CP44); and wherein three pressure sensors are arranged in the heel region (CP43), one of which pressure sensors is placed medially, one laterally and one dorsally (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an insole for a sports shoe, to modify Lan, to include the same geometric shape pressure sensor, as taught by Everette, for the benefit of providing a device which can to help judge or correct the user's activities, posture or stride to provide a shoe which can provide feedback while under the care of a healthcare professional.
Regarding claim 20, Lan further discloses longitudinal directions of the plurality of pressure sensors have angles of between 0° and 30° with the direction of the longitudinal extent of the insole (see Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 21, Lan further discloses the plurality of pressure sensors (see annotated Fig. 3 above) are resistive dielectric pressure sensors [¶0012-¶0014], in particular pressure measurement film sensors (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 22-23, Lan further discloses the plurality of pressure sensors (22).
Lan fails to explicitly discloses a first conductive layer, a dielectric layer on the first conductive layer, which the dielectric layer is surrounded and delimited by a spacer that determines the shape of the pressure sensor, and a second conductive layer on the dielectric layer and the spacer.
Everette further discloses a first conductive layer (210), a dielectric layer (207) on the first conductive layer (208), which the dielectric layer (207) being surrounded and delimited by a spacer (206) that determines the shape of the pressure sensor (55), and a second conductive layer (211) on the dielectric layer (207) and the spacer [(206), Fig. 10].
Everette further discloses the first conductive layer (210) comprises silver [¶0206, lines 1-3], the dielectric layer (207) being formed of dielectric islands spaced apart from one another, and the second conductive layer (211) comprises carbon (¶0217, lines 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an insole for a sports shoe, to modify Lan, to include the same geometric shape pressure sensor, as taught by Everette, for the benefit of providing a device which can to help judge or correct the user's activities, posture or stride to provide a shoe which can provide feedback while under the care of a healthcare professional.
Regarding claim 24, Lan further discloses the plurality of pressure sensors (55) are capacitive or piezoresistive sensors (¶0013).
Regarding claim 25, Lan further discloses the insole further comprising an at least 3-layer (sole 12, insole 102 and outsole 101) structure which, in addition to the flat flexible substrate (204), comprises an intermediate layer (102), in which the pressure sensors (32 & 65) and the power supply (28) and sensor signal lines are arranged, and one or more top layers (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), wherein the rigidity of the flat substrate is greater than the rigidity of the one or more top layers (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 26, Lan further discloses a foot pressure measurement arrangement having an insole (102) having a plurality of pressure sensors (32), which has a first end (front region) formed on the insole (102) and a second end (heel region), and a power supply (28) and transmission module (27) which is able to be connected to the second end of the supply line substrate (Fig. 2) and which has at least one power source for supplying power to the pressure sensors (32; ¶0024, lines 8-11) and a sensor signal transmission unit (27) for transmitting the sensor signals to the outside and is configured to be attached to the sports shoe (Fig. 2).
Lan fails to explicitly discloses a strip-shaped supply line substrate and connection socket.
Everette further discloses a strip-shaped supply line substrate (30) and connection socket (32).
PNG
media_image3.png
516
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of an insole for a sports shoe, to modify Lan, to include a strip-shaped supply line substrate, as taught by Everette, for the benefit of providing a device which can to help judge or correct the user's activities, posture or stride to provide a shoe which can provide feedback while under the care of a healthcare professional.
Regarding claim 27, Lan further discloses an insole (102) having a plurality of pressure sensors (32 & 65); a power source (28) for supplying power to the pressure sensors which is integrated in the insole (102), and an integrated wireless transmission unit (227) for transmitting the sensor signals to the outside which is connected to the free ends of the sensor signal lines (¶0030, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 28, Lan further discloses the integrated power source (28) being of the piezoelectric type (¶0013) and configured in such a way that it converts movements of the foot of the wearer into electrical energy, or is of the thermoelectric type and configured in such a way that it converts the body heat of the wearer into electrical current, or is in the form of a film solid-state battery or film solid-state rechargeable battery (28).
Regarding claim 29, Lan further discloses an integrated processing unit (227) being incorporated in the sensor signal lines between the pressure sensors (32 & 34-36) and the wireless transmission unit (227) and which comprises a number of pre-processing channels that corresponds to the number of pressure sensors (32 & 34-36) in order to pre-process the sensor signals of the individual pressure sensors separately (¶0030, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 30, Lan further discloses the arrangement incorporated in a sports shoe “a pressure-detecting shoe”, in particular a golf, tennis, baseball or running shoe (Fig. 1, ¶0004, line 1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855