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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 04, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
As per claim 1, line 6, applicant claims for “initiating advertisement….”. It is unclear what intended for “advertisement”?
As per claim 9, line 4, applicant claims for “initiating advertisement….”. It is unclear what intended for “advertisement”?
As per claim 17, line 6, applicant claims for “initiating advertisement….”. It is unclear what intended for “advertisement”?
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 should have been rejected for the same reason for their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guard et al. (US 2020/0253320) in view of Whitney et al. (US 2016/0093199).
As per claim 9, Guard et al. disclose am smart footwear article (insole, 100, figures 1- 2) comprises one or more sensors (118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 134, paragraphs 0150) and a processor (print circuit board, PCB 202, figures 2 and 5, paragraphs 0185 and 0218) method (figures 1-3) comprising,
the processor includes a Bluetooth module (paragraph 0179) configured to initiating advertisement for communication with a computing device (106, figure 1, paragraph 0149 and 0164) in response to the one or more sensors detect state and establishing a communication with the computing device after initiating the advertisement (paragraphs 0168, 0219-0220);
calibrating the one or more sensors in the insole after establishing the
communication (paragraphs 0180 and 0227, 0229, 0233); and
transmitting data from the one or more sensors to the computing device after
calibrating the one or more sensors (paragraphs 0143, 0219).
Guard et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for waking up, one or more sensors and a processor, from a lower power mode in response to detection that the insole is in use. Whitney et al. disclose a shoe-based wearable interaction system comprises a processor (104) embedded in a shoe (102) and a shoe interface (106) connected to the processor 0013), wherein the processor (104) being kept in a low-power state when not in use and being awoken by bringing shoe (102) into close proximity to a companion shoe (paragraphs 0036-0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the waking mode as taught by Whitney et al. in a system as disclosed by Guard et al. for the purpose of conserving power when the shoes are not in use.
As per claim 10, Whitney et al. disclose entering the low power mode if communication with the computing device is not established (the processor (104) being kept in a low-power state when not in use, paragraph 0036).
As per claim 11, Guard et al. disclose the one or more sensors comprise a pressure sensor (118, paragraph 0150) coupled to a flexible printed circuit board (340) and wherein the pressure sensor is to detect a point pressure on the insole (figure 5, paragraph 0189-0190).
As per claim 12, Guard et al. disclose the one or more sensors comprise a battery monitoring integrated circuit (power management unit, paragraphs 0018-0179), a wireless charging receiver (280, paragraph 0208), a changing circuit chip (230) and a wireless charging transmitter (260) and a changing LED state to provide a first data to calculate a charge level of a battery (paragraphs 0210).
As per claim 13, Guard et al. disclose the battery (290) being coupled to a relatively rigid printed circuit board, wherein the battery is used to power the one or more sensors and the processor (figure 2, paragraphs 0186).
As per claim 14, Guard et al. disclose the relatively rigid printed circuit board is coupled to the flexible printed circuit board (paragraph 0189-0190 and 0218).
As per claim 15, Guard et al. disclose the one or more sensors comprise an inertial measurement unit to provide a second data to calculate parameters related to time, speed, and angles of the insole (paragraphs 0173-0174, and 0231).
As per claim 16, Guard et al. disclose the one or more sensors comprise a barometric sensor (156, paragraph 0163) to provide a third data to calculate height of the insole above a ground.
As per claims 1-8 and 17-20, refer to claims 10-17 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights