DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 9/9/2025, and 3/31/2026 have been fully considered.
Priority
The priority claims to PCT/US2023/064218 filed on 3/13/2023 and provisional application 63/319014 filed on 3/11/2022.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding claim 14, this claim pertains to a method of controlling a velocity of a power driven shoe. While that idea is broadly understood in the art, this claim specifically pertains to:
“transmitting the first velocity to a paired power-driven shoe;
receiving a second velocity from the paired power-driven shoe;
determining whether the first velocity and second velocity match;
in response to the first velocity and the second velocity not matching: determining a safer velocity between the first velocity and the second velocity; and
operating the motor at the safer velocity; and
in response to the first velocity and the second velocity matching, operating the motor at the first velocity.”
This comparison of velocities is not found in the art. The primary reference relied upon below is Soliman and it does have paired power-driven shoes sending information to one another. However, it does not have them compare velocities to one another and change the behavior of the motors of the shoes depending on whether those velocities match or not. No superior reference was found. Thus, claim 14 is allowed.
Regarding claim 15, this claim appropriately depends upon allowed claim 14, and is thus allowable at least by merit of its dependency.
Claims 5-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, Soliman in view of Treadway teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However, neither Soliman nor Treadway teach a strap, configured to attach the power-driven shoe to a user's shoe or foot, interfaced directly to the gearbox housing. Soliman does teach a strap (24, 25, 26, 27 and/or 28 “fastening means,” taught by figures 1 and 12), but not a strap that interfaces directly to the gearbox housing, or anywhere a gearbox housing could obvious be placed in view of Treadway.
Upon additional searching, no superior reference was found that taught all the limitations of claim 5, either on its own or in obvious combination with other prior art references. Notably, gearbox housings for similar inventions are typically not shown at all (see Quick US 10576360 B2), or only contain gears (see Treadway). Thus, because all the limitations of claim 5 are not taught by the prior art, it contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, Soliman in view of Treadway teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However, Soliman does not teach wherein the control circuit is within the gearbox housing. While Soliman teaches a control circuit and Treadway teaches a gearbox, it does not seem obvious to incorporate the gearbox around the control circuit, at least because the location of the control circuit does not simply allow the gearbox to be connected to the wheels.
Upon additional searching, no superior reference was found that taught all the limitations of claim 6, either on its own or in obvious combination with other prior art references. Notably, gearbox housings for similar inventions are typically not shown at all (see Quick US 10576360 B2), or only contain gears (see Treadway). Thus, because all the limitations of claim 6 are not taught by the prior art, it contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, Soliman in view of Treadway teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However, Soliman does not teach a power module within the gearbox housing. While Soliman teaches a power module (19 “electrical power source” taught in figure 1) and Treadway teaches a gearbox, it does not seem obvious to incorporate the gearbox around the power module, at least because the location of the power module does not simply allow the gearbox to be connected to the wheels.
Upon additional searching, no superior reference was found that taught all the limitations of claim 7, either on its own or in obvious combination with other prior art references. Notably, gearbox housings for similar inventions are typically not shown at all (see Quick US 10576360 B2), or only contain gears (see Treadway). Thus, because all the limitations of claim 7 are not taught by the prior art, it contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, this claim appropriately depends upon claim 7 and thus inherits its allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Soliman (US 20240317072 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Soliman teaches a power-driven shoe comprising:
a shoe sole comprising a sole portion and a toe portion (taught by figures 1, 9, and 12);
a plurality of rotatable wheels disposed below the shoe sole (104 “at least one wheel,” 21, and 22 “at least two wheels” taught by figure 1);
a motor disposed below the shoe sole, wherein the motor is in driving connection with at least one of the plurality of rotatable wheels (105 “motor” taught by figure 1);
a control circuit (15 “detection means” taught by figure 1) interfaced to the motor (taught by paragraph 122 “the means 15 for detecting a propulsion event compares a voltage value of at least one phase of the 3-phase motor”); and
a network adapter interfaced to the control circuit, wherein the network adapter is configured to communicate to a second power-driven shoe using one-way communication (taught by figure 9 and paragraph 216 “The information collected on one of the inline skates, 20-1 and/or 400-1, is transmitted to the other inline skate, 20-2, and/or 400-2”).
Regarding claim 2, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Soliman also teaches wherein the plurality of rotatable wheels comprise: a toe grouping of rotatable wheels disposed under the toe portion (21 “at least two wheels” taught by figure 1);
a middle grouping of rotatable wheels disposed under a front portion of the heel portion (22 “at least two wheels” taught by figure 1); and
a heel grouping of rotatable wheels disposed under a rear portion of the heel portion (104 “at least one wheel” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Soliman also teaches wherein the motor is a brushless direct current motor (taught by paragraph 103 “Preferably, the 3-phase electric motor 105 is a brushless motor” and figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Soliman also teaches, further comprising a remote control device configured to interface to the network adapter (91 “a communicating portable terminal” taught by figure 9).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman (US 20240317072 A1) in view of Chioclea (US 11554312 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 2, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Soliman also teaches wherein the motor is interfaced to at least one rotatable wheel of the rear grouping (taught by figure 1).
However, Soliman does not teach wherein the motor is interfaced to at least one rotatable wheel of the middle grouping.
Chioclea teaches wherein the motor is interfaced to at least one rotatable wheel of the middle grouping and at least one rotatable wheel of the rear grouping (taught by 108 “one or more transmission wheels” in figure 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the at least one rotatable wheel of the middle grouping of Soliman to be driven by the motor through a belt/chain as taught by Chioclea with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because having multiple wheels be driven by the motor distributes its power improving traction and acceleration.
Claim(s) 4, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman (US 20240317072 A1) in view of Treadway 1 (US 10398963 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
However, Soliman does not teach a gearbox housing comprising a geared drivetrain system.
Treadway 1 teaches a gearbox housing comprising a geared drivetrain system (1c “gearbox” taught by figure 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the gearbox housing comprising a geared drivetrain system of Treadway 1 onto the wheels of Soliman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because gears allow more control over the speed and torque of connected wheels.
Regarding claim 10, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 9, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
However, Soliman does not teach a hall effect sensor integrated into the motor and interfaced with the control circuit.
Treadway 1 teaches a hall effect sensor integrated into the motor and interfaced with the control circuit (130, 132, and 134 “motor hall signal A, B, and C” taught by figure 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the hall effect sensor of Treadway 1 onto the wheels of Soliman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because a hall effect uses magnets instead of physical contact reducing wear and tear, and increasing the component’s lifespan.
Regarding claim 11, Soliman in view of Treadway 1 teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 10, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Soliman in view of Treadway 1 also teaches wherein a magnet of the motor is extended beyond the length of a coil of the motor (taught by figures 8 and 9).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soliman (US 20240317072 A1) in view of Treadway 2 (US 9855489 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Soliman teaches the power-driven shoe of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
However, Soliman does not teach an inertial measurement unit interfaced to the control circuit.
Treadway 2 teaches an inertial measurement unit interfaced to the control circuit (taught by claim 7 “wherein the one or more control signals received from the mobile device include information related to inertia of the mobile device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the inertia sensor of Treadway 2 onto the control circuit of Soliman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this incorporation because being able to measure inertia allows the measurement of acceleration which can be used to make sure that two power-driven shoes do not have different enough accelerations to endanger a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights