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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a first electrode, a second electrode, in claim 1, line 7” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "upper level electrodes, in page 10" and "the electrodes, pare 11" have both been used to designate 121; and reference characters "lower level electrodes, in page 10" and "the electrodes, pare 11" have both been used to designate 123. 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. 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.
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 1-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 8-9, the phrase "a flexible composite piezoresistive layer interposed between the first and second electrodes a first electrode", renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which structure encompassed by such limitation, since the original figure 2A shows an upper level electrodes 121 disposed between the lower level electrodes 123; furthermore which one is a first electrode and which is a second electrode? For the purpose of examination and as best understood the limitation is interpreted to mean “a flexible composite piezoresistive layer interposed between the first electrode layer and a second electrodes layer”.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that “wherein the flexible conductive electrode structure is shaped via laser cutting or high-precision die-cutting.” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentablility of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 2-22 are dependent of claim 1, and are likewise indefinite.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 13-15, 17-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathieu et al. (2023/0180893—hereinafter, Mathieu).
Regarding claim 1, Mathieu discloses a smart shoe system (fig.1), comprising: a shoe (fig.1 shows a pair of shoe) comprising a shoe body (fig.1 shows a shoe C having a body structure is formed by an upper attached to a sole), a shoe sole (see the annotated fig.1A below), and an insole (1), wherein the shoe sole is attached to an outer surface of the shoe body's bottom (see the annotated fig.1A below), wherein the insole is located within the shoe body onto an inner surface of the shoe body's bottom (par [0012]), and wherein the shoe body is shaped and dimensioned to receive a user's foot (fig.1, par [0021]); wherein said insole comprises a flexible pressure sensor array (layer 40); wherein said flexible pressure sensor array comprises a first upper electrode (31), a second lower electrode (32), and a flexible composite piezoresistive layer (33) interposed between the first and second electrodes (fig.3); and wherein each of the first upper and second lower electrodes comprises a flexible substrate and a flexible conductive electrode structure that is bonded to said flexible substrate ([0090] Upper conductors 36a are also provided on the upper layer 31. The upper 36a conductors are electrically connected to the upper 35a electrodes of the 34 sensors. Similarly, lower conductors 36b are provided on the lower part 32. The lower 36a conductors are electrically connected to the lower 35b electrodes of the 34 sensors. [0091] In one embodiment of the invention, the upper conductors 36a and the lower conductors 36b can be arranged to connect together the sensors 34. The sensors 34 are advantageously distributed on the surface of the insole 1 in a matrix).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mathieu discloses the smart shoe system of claim 1, further comprising a computing module electrically connected to said insole ([0185] As shown in FIG. 4, the standalone sole 1 may include a memory of 70. The memory 70 is adapted to be mounted on the autonomous sole 1, for example in the case 23. The memory 70 can be mounted permanently or can be a removable module, for example a memory card such as an SD card (“Secure Digital”). [0186] In particular, the memory 70 is functionally connected to the processing unit 60. The memory 70 can be controlled by the processing unit 60 in such a way as to record the force and/or pressure measurements, the motion measurements, the stimulation parameters and/or the walking moment, over a period of several days, for example at least seven days so as to cover a week of a person for use in autonomy).
Regarding claim 3, Mathieu discloses the smart shoe system of claim 2, wherein said computing module comprises an inertial measurement unit, a barometer, microcontroller, and a wireless signal transmitter ([0189] The communication module 80 can advantageously be a wireless communication module, for example a module implementing a protocol such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, SIGFOX or LoRa technology.
[0190] In this way, when the person is in a walking period, he is not hindered by cables, especially if it is necessary to carry out data transmissions during the period of motion on foot. [0191] In addition, as shown in FIG. 4, the insole 1 may include at least one battery 90. The battery 90 can advantageously be flexible. The battery 90 can be recharged by wireless induction [0015] a processing unit adapted to receive the force and/or pressure measurement and the motion measurement, to compute at least one walking parameter and to control the emission of a stimulation at a walking moment according to the value of the walking parameter. [0016] According to one embodiment, the insole additionally includes a stimulation unit adapted to be controlled by the processing unit and to emit the stimulation to stimulate the foot of the person. [0017] According to another embodiment, the processing unit is adapted to determine in real time the walking moment and to control in real time the emission of the stimulation.)
Regarding claim 11, Mathieu discloses the smart shoe system of claim 1, wherein the flexible composite piezoresistive layer comprises an elastomer matrix impregnated with conductive particles (par [0072, 0090-0091]).
Regarding claim 13, Mathieu discloses wherein said elastomer matrix comprises one of polyethylene(PE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polyurethane (PU), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), silicone rubber (VMQ), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), fluoroelastomers (FKM), natural rubber (NR), or other flexible polymeric elastomers (par [0072]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Mathieu discloses the flexible composite piezoresistive layer comprises micro-dome elements and/or porous sections (37, par [0095]); wherein the flexible substrate comprises one of acetate, polyester, polyimide, or flexible polymer films (par [0072]).
Regarding claim 17, Mathieu discloses wherein the flexible conductive electrode structure is bonded to said flexible substrate via one of fabric glue, thermal bonding, ultrasonic welding, adhesive bonding or lamination techniques (par [0072, 0090]).
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that “wherein the flexible conductive electrode structure is shaped via laser cutting or high-precision die-cutting.” recites a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentablility of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. See the structure of element layers 31, 32 of Mathieu.
Regarding claims 19-20, 22, Mathieu discloses wherein the computing module is located within the shoe sole, or is attached to the shoe sole's bottom ([0185] As shown in FIG. 4, the standalone sole 1 may include a memory of 70. The memory 70 is adapted to be mounted on the autonomous sole 1, for example in the case 23. The memory 70 can be mounted permanently or can be a removable module, for example a memory card such as an SD card (“Secure Digital”); wherein the computing module is configured to be removably located onto the shoe body ([0185] As shown in FIG. 4, the standalone sole 1 may include a memory of 70. The memory 70 is adapted to be mounted on the autonomous sole 1, for example in the case 23. The memory 70 can be mounted permanently or can be a removable module, for example a memory card such as an SD card (“Secure Digital”); wherein said insole further comprises a flexible printed circuit (FPC), (fig.3 shows the flexible upper layer 31 and a flexible lower layer 32 including acquisition circuit to connecting all sensors 34, 35a, 35b together, par [0084-0085, 0134]) and wherein the flexible pressure sensor array is connected to the FPC via a conductive adhesive par [0084-0085, 0134]).
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 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathieu et al. (2023/0180893—hereinafter, Mathieu) in view of Amos et al. (2016/0081418—hereinafter, Amos).
Regarding claim 12, Mathieu does not disclose wherein the conductive particles comprise one of carbon black, graphene, graphene oxide, silver nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), copper nanoparticles, conductive polyaniline (PANI), Poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), two-dimensional materials made of transition metal carbides, carbonitrides and nitrides (MXenes), metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), or combinations thereof. However, Amos teaches another similar footwear article fig.1 having an upper 120 attached to a sole 130; and par [0060] states the sole structure 130 is secured to a lower surface of upper 120 and may have a generally conventional shape. The sole structure 130 may have a multipiece structure, e.g., one that includes a midsole 131, an outsole 132, and a foot contacting member 133, which may be a sockliner, a strobel, an insole member, a bootie element, a sock, etc. (See FIGS. 4-5). In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 4-5, the foot contacting member 133 is an insole member or sockline; par [0097] In the embodiment of the sensor system 1312 shown in FIGS. 27-28, each sensor 1316 includes two contacts 1340, 1342 constructed of a conductive metallic layer and a carbon layer (such as carbon black) forming a contact surface on the metallic layer (not shown). The sensors 1316 also include a force-sensitive resistive material 1344 that also is constructed of a layer or puddle of carbon (such as carbon black), which is in contact with the carbon contact surface of the electrodes 1340, 1342. The carbon-on-carbon contact can produce greater conductivity changes under pressure, increasing the effectiveness of the sensors 1316. The leads 1318, 1318A in this embodiment are constructed of a conductive metallic material that may be the same as the material of the metallic layer of the contacts 1340, 1342. In one embodiment, the leads 1318, 1318A and the metallic layers of the contacts 1340, 1342 are constructed of silver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide carbon black for the conductive particles for Mathieu as taught by Amos in order to provide conductive activity to the footwear article or allow electrons to flow freely and fluidly from one point to another if they are connected to a power source.
Regarding claim 16, Mathieu does not disclose wherein the flexible conductive electrode structure comprises one of silver-plated fabrics, nickel/copper-plated fabric, conductive inks, or carbon-based conductive polymers. However, Amos teaches another similar footwear article fig.1 having an upper 120 attached to a sole 130; and par [0060] states the sole structure 130 is secured to a lower surface of upper 120 and may have a generally conventional shape. The sole structure 130 may have a multipiece structure, e.g., one that includes a midsole 131, an outsole 132, and a foot contacting member 133, which may be a sockliner, a strobel, an insole member, a bootie element, a sock, etc. (See FIGS. 4-5). In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 4-5, the foot contacting member 133 is an insole member or sockline; par [0097] In the embodiment of the sensor system 1312 shown in FIGS. 27-28, each sensor 1316 includes two contacts 1340, 1342 constructed of a conductive metallic layer and a carbon layer (such as carbon black) forming a contact surface on the metallic layer (not shown). The sensors 1316 also include a force-sensitive resistive material 1344 that also is constructed of a layer or puddle of carbon (such as carbon black), which is in contact with the carbon contact surface of the electrodes 1340, 1342. The carbon-on-carbon contact can produce greater conductivity changes under pressure, increasing the effectiveness of the sensors 1316. The leads 1318, 1318A in this embodiment are constructed of a conductive metallic material that may be the same as the material of the metallic layer of the contacts 1340, 1342. In one embodiment, the leads 1318, 1318A and the metallic layers of the contacts 1340, 1342 are constructed of silver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide carbon-base conductive polymers for Mathieu as taught by Amos in order to provide conductive activity to the footwear article or allow electrons to flow freely and fluidly from one point to another if they are connected to a power source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732