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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 13, 2026 has been entered.
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 (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 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)(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) 1–3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Evke et al. (US Pat. # 12152910), hereinafter referred to as Evke.
Regarding claim 1, Evke teaches, “A wearable sensor pad configured to be in contact with a substrate with a contoured surface (foot-substrate; see col. 8, ln. 13–22), the wearable sensor pad comprising: a sensor layer (108/208 for example; see Fig. 1, 2; col. 7, ln. 4–col. 9, ln. 52) having a surface area that defines a sensing area, the sensor layer configured to measure values detected at a plurality of locations of the sensing area; and a stiffener layer (ref. # 102/204 for example; col. 2, ln. 29–54; col. 13, ln. 45–col. 14, ln. 11; Fig. 10 in combination with col. 17, ln. 65–col. 18, ln. 4; Fig. 25) coupled to at least a majority of the surface area of the sensor layer, and positioned outside of the sensor layer, the stiffener layer having micro-cut patterns that reduce resistance of the stiffener layer in one or more predefined directions to enhance stretching or compressing of the sensor layer in the one or more predefined directions to conform with the contoured surface, wherein the stiffener layer includes a first region having a first micro-cut pattern, a second region that is uncut, and a third region having a second micro-cut pattern different from the first micro-cut pattern, such that different portions of the wearable sensor pad have different flex characteristics (Fig. 1 and 2 show sensor layer with sensors 108/208 for example, and separate stiffener layer with at least three different areas with micro-cuts, and multiple areas without cuts – see Fig. 25 showing three micro-cut portions and areas in between without).”
Regarding claim 2, Evke teaches, “wherein the wearable sensor pad is an insole and the substrate is a shoe (col. 8, ln. 13–22).”
Regarding claim 3, Evke teaches, “wherein the substrate is part of a human body (foot-col. 8, ln. 13–22).”
Regarding claim 12, Evke teaches, “An insole configured to be inserted into a shoe for a foot that has a contoured surface (col. 8, ln. 13–22), the insole comprising: a flexible enclosure that is foldable (col. 10, ln. 9–20; flexible layers in combination with 108/208 layers and separate stiffener layer/substrates 102/204 for example); a sensor layer (108/208 for example; see Fig. 1, 2; col. 7, ln. 4–col. 9, ln. 52) having a surface area that defines a sensing area, the sensor layer configured to measure values detected at a plurality of locations of the sensing area; a stiffener layer (ref. # 102/204 for example; see col. 2, ln. 29–54; col. 13, ln. 45–col. 14, ln. 11; Fig. 10 in combination with col. 17, ln. 65–col. 18, ln. 4; Fig. 25) coupled to at least a majority of the surface area of the sensor layer, and positioned outside of the sensor layer, the stiffener layer having micro-cut patterns that reduce resistance of the stiffener layer in one or more predefined directions to enhance stretching or compressing of the sensor layer in the one or more predefined directions to conform with the contoured surface, wherein the stiffener layer includes a first region having a first micro-cut pattern, a second region that is uncut, and a third region having a second micro-cut pattern different from the first micro-cut pattern, such that different portions of the wearable sensor pad have different flex characteristics (Fig. 1 and 2 show sensor layer with sensors 108/208 for example, and separate stiffener layer with at least three different areas with micro-cuts, and multiple areas without cuts – see Fig. 25 showing three micro-cut portions and areas in between without).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evke et al. (US Pat. # 12152910) in view of Everett et al. (WO 2021/092676 A1), hereinafter referred to as Everett.
Regarding claims 18–20, Evke teaches all the details related to the sensor pad (see rejection of claim 1 above), but appears silent as to the claimed, “a computing device in communication with the sensor pad, the computing device comprising memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors: cause an user interface to display a heatmap of a pressure differential across the sensor pad; cause the user interface to display a gait visualization; and cause the user interface to display a load graph of representing force exerted on the sensor pad; wherein the user interface is configured to display statistics calculated from previous data stored by a server; a wireless transmitter configured to transmit sensor pad data from the sensor pad to a server.” However, Everett teaches the deficiencies of Evke (see para. [0074, 0082, 0084, 0085, 0098, 0140–0154, 0228, 0274, 0279]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Evke’s invention to include a computing device in communication with the sensor pad, the computing device comprising memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors: cause an user interface to display a heatmap of a pressure differential across the sensor pad; cause the user interface to display a gait visualization; and cause the user interface to display a load graph of representing force exerted on the sensor pad; wherein the user interface is configured to display statistics calculated from previous data stored by a server; a wireless transmitter configured to transmit sensor pad data from the sensor pad to a server.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Evke’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring remote sensing capabilities for ease of diagnosis or data interpretation.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7–11, and 13–17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett (WO 2021/092676 A1) in view of Evke (US Pat. # 12152910).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 7–11, and 13–17, which depend from independent claims 1 and 12, an alternative rejection is presented for claims 1 and 12, being unpatentable over Everett in view of Evke, replacing the stiffener layer (5) of Everett with the stiffener layer (see rejection of claims 1 and 12 above) of Evke. Everett teaches a sensor pad (Fig. 9, 10), with a sensor layer (55) and stiffener layer (5), but does not teach the micro-cut/uncut details. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Everett’s invention to include the micro-cut/uncut details as amended claims 1 and 12 exhibit.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Everett’s invention for at least the purpose of maximizing flexibility in areas of the sensor device which exhibit greater loads and pressure, ensuring more accuracy when detecting/presenting load mapping (see abstract of Evke).
Regarding claim 4, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor layer forms a capacitance sensor and comprises a conductive layer and a dielectric layer (see para. [0078, 0202, 0209–0215, 0221]).”
Regarding claim 5, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor pad (Fig. 9, 10) comprises a flexible enclosure (ref. # 201, 211; para. [0205]), a capacitive layer (para. [007, 0210, 0216]), a stiffener layer (taught by Evke as shown above), wiring (202, 210 connect to 90 via 80, including traces), and perimeter stiffeners (para. [0217]; protective material applied to outside of layers 201, 211 as disclosed).”
Regarding claim 7, Everett teaches, “a conductive grid, the conductive grid comprising a series of wires each separated by a non-conductive thermoplastic material providing strain relief (para. [0074, 0180, 0201–0205, 0211, 0275]).”
Regarding claim 8, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor layer comprises a conductive grid that comprises two conductive layers, a first conductive layer having a first series of wires arranged in a first direction and a second conductive layer having a second series of wires arranged in a second direction different from the first direction, the first and second conductive layer, when coupled, forming a plurality of discrete sensing locations at wire intersections of the first and second series of wires (para. [0074, 0180, 0201–0205, 0211, 0275]).”
Regarding claim 9, Everett teaches, “an electrical connector connecting the sensor pad to a wireless transmitter (see para. [0071, 0080, 0084, 0098, 0099]).”
Regarding claim 10, Everett teaches, “a plurality of rigid stiffeners at predefined locations of a peripheral region of the wearable sensor pad (see para. [0217]; protective material applied to outside of layers 201, 211 teaches rigid stiffeners at peripheral region of pad, as the carbon fiber for example, protects the sensors from damage).”
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Everett teaches, “a peripheral region adjacent to the sensing area (see para. [0078, 0170, 0180, 0202, 0205, 0215, 0217]), the peripheral region configured to be folded away from the sensing area, the peripheral region comprises a perimeter stiffener (see para. [0217]; protective material applied to outside of layers 201, 211 as disclosed).”
Regarding claim 13, Everett teaches, “wherein the sensor layer is configured to measure signals corresponding to pressure exerted on the insole, and the insole comprises a peripheral region is configured to be folded to a location that experiences less pressure than the sensing area (ref. # 55, edges of 5 are foldable based on materials from which it is made (where intended use/functional language limitations of experiencing less pressure) exists on edge of 5).”
Regarding claim 15, Evke teaches, “wherein the stiffener layer lacks the micro-cut pattern on a portion of the layer at one or more predefined locations (see Fig. 25, areas lacking cut pattern).”
Regarding claim 16, Everett teaches, “wherein the stiffener layer comprises one or more stiffener tabs configured to conform to a heel of the shoe (ref. # 5 in Fig. 9 shown with cup shape at heel area, interpreted as stiffener tab configured to conform to heel of shoe; see also [0081, 0167-0169, 0171, 0213, 0241]).”
Regarding claim 17, Everett teaches, “wherein the stiffener tabs comprise a first surface that is configured to contact an interior of the heel of the shoe and a second surface that is configured to contact the foot, the first surface contacting the interior of heel of the shoe having a texture for increasing friction between the insole and the interior (see para. [0078, 0081, 0167- 0171, 0180, 0202, 0205, 0213, 0217, 0241]; surface contacting interior of heel of shoe and second surface contacting foot disclosed as described, also having materials with textures for increasing friction between insole and interior).”
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett (WO 2021/092676 A1) in view of Evke (US Pat. # 12152910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lei et al. (CN 111631486 A), hereinafter referred to as Lei.
Regarding claim 6, Everett in view of Evke do not appear to teach, “one or more friction pads configured to be folded away from the sensing area and provide a textured surface to frictionally couple the sensor pad to a surface.” However, Lei teaches the deficiencies of Everett and Evke (see description of heel pad 104, which is shown folded away from where sensing area as taught by Everett is located, “provided with circular bump”; Lei describes bumps as “increasing friction preventing insole sliding out”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Everett and Evke’s invention to include one or more friction pads configured to be folded away from the sensing area and provide a textured surface to frictionally couple the sensor pad to a surface.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Everett and Evke’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring there is minimal or reduced slippage between the insole and bottom/perimeter of a shoe, and to prevent the insole from sliding out of the shoe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights