WO1997000029A1 - Shoe sole structures - Google Patents

Shoe sole structures Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO1997000029A1
WO1997000029A1 PCT/US1996/010223 US9610223W WO9700029A1 WO 1997000029 A1 WO1997000029 A1 WO 1997000029A1 US 9610223 W US9610223 W US 9610223W WO 9700029 A1 WO9700029 A1 WO 9700029A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
sole
foot
shoe
shoe sole
wearer
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US1996/010223
Other languages
French (fr)
Inventor
Frampton Erroll Ellis, Iii
Original Assignee
Frampton Erroll Ellis, Iii
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Frampton Erroll Ellis, Iii filed Critical Frampton Erroll Ellis, Iii
Priority to AU64773/96A priority Critical patent/AU6477396A/en
Publication of WO1997000029A1 publication Critical patent/WO1997000029A1/en

Links

Classifications

    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A43—FOOTWEAR
    • A43B—CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF FOOTWEAR; PARTS OF FOOTWEAR
    • A43B13/00—Soles; Sole-and-heel integral units
    • A43B13/14—Soles; Sole-and-heel integral units characterised by the constructive form
    • A43B13/143—Soles; Sole-and-heel integral units characterised by the constructive form provided with wedged, concave or convex end portions, e.g. for improving roll-off of the foot
    • A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
    • A43—FOOTWEAR
    • A43B—CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF FOOTWEAR; PARTS OF FOOTWEAR
    • A43B13/00—Soles; Sole-and-heel integral units
    • A43B13/14—Soles; Sole-and-heel integral units characterised by the constructive form
    • A43B13/143—Soles; Sole-and-heel integral units characterised by the constructive form provided with wedged, concave or convex end portions, e.g. for improving roll-off of the foot
    • A43B13/145—Convex portions, e.g. with a bump or projection, e.g. 'Masai' type shoes

Definitions

  • This invention relates generally to the struc- ture of soles of shoes and other footwear, including soles of street shoes, hiking boots, sandals, slippers, and moccasins. More specifically, this invention relates to the structure of athletic shoe soles, including such examples as basketball and running shoes. Still more particularly, this application explicitly includes an alternate definition of the inner surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane as being complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot, instead of conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to a shoe last approximating it either for a specific indi ⁇ vidual; such alternate definition is more like a standard shoe last that approximates the exact shape and size of the individual wearer's foot sole for mass production. This application also includes the broadest possible definition for the inner surface of the contoured shoe sole sides that still defines over the prior art, namely any position between roughly paralleling the wearer's foot sole and roughly paralleling the flat ground.
  • this invention relates to variations in the structure of such shoes having a sole contour which fol ⁇ lows a theoretically ideal stability plane as a basic concept, but which deviates substantially therefrom out ⁇ wardly, to provide greater than natural stability, so that joint motion of the wearer is restricted, especially the ankle joint; or, alternately, which deviates substan ⁇ tially therefrom inwardly, to provide less than natural stability, so that a greater freedom of joint motion is allowed.
  • substantial density variations or bottom sole designs are used instead of, or in combina ⁇ tion with, substantial thickness variations for the same purpose.
  • this invention is the structure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the sides of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sides conforming to the ground by paralleling it, as is conventional) .
  • the shoe sole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
  • this invention relates to shoe sole structures that are formed to conform to the all or part of the shape of the wearer's foot sole, whether under a body weight load or unloaded, but without contoured stability sides as defined by the applicant.
  • this invention relates to variations in the structure of such soles using a theoretically ideal stability plane as a basic concept, especially including structures exceeding that plane.
  • this invention relates to contoured shoe sole sides that provide support for sideways tilting of any angular amount from zero degrees to 180 degrees at least for such contoured sides proximate to any one or more or all of the essential stability or propulsion structures of the foot, as defined below and previously.
  • the parent '598 application clarified and expanded the applicant's earlier filed U.S. Application No. 07/680,134, filed April 3, 1991.
  • the applicant has introduced into the art the concept of a theoretically ideal stability plane as a structural basis for shoe sole designs.
  • the theoreti ⁇ cally ideal stability plane was defined by the applicant in previous copending applications as the plane of the surface of the bottom of the shoe sole, wherein the shoe sole conforms to the natural shape of the wearer's foot sole, particularly its sides, and has a constant thick- ness in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
  • the theoretically ideal stabil ⁇ ity plane is the surface plane of the bottom of the shoe sole that parallels the surface of the wearer's foot sole in transverse or frontal plane cross sections.
  • the theoretically ideal stability plane concept as implemented into shoes such as street shoes and ath ⁇ letic shoes is presented in U.S. Patent Numbers 4,989,349, issued February 5, 1991 and 5,317,819, issued June 7, 1994, both of which are incorporated by refer- ence; and pending U. S. application Nos.
  • This new invention is a modification of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the earlier applica- tions and develops the application of the concept of the theoretically ideal stability plane to other shoe struc ⁇ tures.
  • Each of the applicant's applications is built directly on its predecessors and therefore all possible combinations of inventions or their component elements with other inventions or elements in prior and subsequent applications have always been specifically intended by the applicant.
  • the applicant's applications are generic at such a fundamental level that it is not possible as a practical matter to describe every embodiment combination that offers substantial improvement over the existing art, as the length of this description of only some combinations will testify.
  • the underlying cause of the universal instabil ⁇ ity of shoes is a critical but correctable design flaw. That hidden flaw, so deeply ingrained in existing shoe designs, is so extraordinarily fundamental that it has remained unnoticed until now.
  • the flaw is revealed by a novel new biomechanical test, one that is unprecedented in its simplicity. It is easy enough to be duplicated and verified by anyone; it only takes a few minutes and requires no scientific equipment or expertise.
  • the sim- plicity of the test belies its surprisingly convincing results. It demonstrates an obvious difference in sta ⁇ bility between a bare foot and a running shoe, a differ ⁇ ence so unexpectedly huge that it makes an apparently subjective test clearly objective instead. The test proves beyond doubt that all existing shoes are unsafely unstable.
  • the '478 invention relates to variations in the structure of such shoes having a sole contour which fol ⁇ lows a theoretically ideal stability plane as a basic concept, but which deviates therefrom outwardly, to pro ⁇ vide greater than natural stability. Still more particu ⁇ larly, this invention relates to the use of structures approximating, but increasing beyond, a theoretically ideal stability plane to provide greater than natural stability for an individual whose natural foot and ankle biomechanical functioning have been degraded by a life ⁇ time use of flawed existing shoes.
  • the '478 invention is a modification of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the earlier applica ⁇ tion and develops the application of the concept of the theoretically ideal stability plane to other shoe struc- tures.
  • the '302 invention relates to a shoe having an anthropomorphic sole that copies the underlying support, stability and cushioning structures of the human foot.
  • Natural stability is provided by attaching a completely flexible but relatively inelastic shoe sole upper directly to the bottom sole, enveloping the sides of the midsole, instead of attaching it to the top surface of the shoe sole. Doing so puts the flexible side of the shoe upper under tension in reaction to destabilizing sideways forces on the shoe causing it to tilt. That tension force is balanced and in equilibrium because the bottom sole is firmly anchored by body weight, so the destabilizing sideways motion is neutralized by the ten ⁇ sion in the flexible sides of the shoe upper.
  • this invention relates to support and cush ⁇ ioning which is provided by shoe sole compartments filled with a pressure-transmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel.
  • a pressure-transmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel.
  • direct physical contact occurs between the upper surface and the lower surface of the compartments, providing firm, stable sup ⁇ port.
  • Cushioning is provided by the transmitting medium progressively causing tension in the flexible and semi- elastic sides of the shoe sole.
  • the compartments provid ⁇ ing support and cushioning are similar in structure to the fat pads of the foot, which simultaneously provide both firm support and progressive cushioning.
  • PCT/US89/03076 filed on July 14, 1989.
  • the purpose of the inventions disclosed in these applications was primarily to provide a neutral design that allows for natural foot and ankle biomechanics as close as possible to that between the foot and the ground, and to avoid the serious interfer ⁇ ence with natural foot and ankle biomechanics inherent in existing shoes.
  • the barefoot provides sta ⁇ bility at it sides by putting those sides, which are flexible and relatively inelastic, under extreme tension caused by the pressure of the compressed fat pads; they thereby become temporarily rigid when outside forces make that rigidity appropriate, producing none of the desta ⁇ bilizing lever arm torque problems of the permanently rigid sides of existing designs.
  • the applicant's '302 invention simply attempts, as closely as possible, to replicate the naturally effec ⁇ tive structures of the foot that provide stability, sup ⁇ port, and cushioning.
  • This new application explicitly includes an upper shoe sole surface that is complementary to the shape of all or a portion the wearer's foot sole; ⁇ con ⁇ forming" to that foot sole shape remains the best mode, since it gives to one skilled in the art the most exact direction or goal, so that one skilled in the art can use whatever means are available to achieve the closest con ⁇ formance possible, much as the art is used to achieve an accurate fit for a wearer.
  • this application describes shoe contoured sole side designs wherein the inner surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane lies at some point between conforming or complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, that is — roughly paralleling the foot sole including its side — and par ⁇ alleling the flat ground; that inner surface of the theo ⁇ retically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the foot sole during foot inversion and eversion, which is normal sideways or lateral motion.
  • the basis of this design was introduced in the applicant's '302 application relative to Fig. 9 of that application.
  • this application describes shoe sole side designs wherein the lower surface of the theo- retically ideal stability plane, which equates to the load-bearing surface of the bottom or outer shoe sole, of the shoe sole side portions is above the plane of the underneath portion of the shoe sole, when measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections; that lower surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the ground during foot inversion and eversion, which is normal sideways or lateral motion.
  • the appli ⁇ cant's earlier invention disclosed in his '714 applica ⁇ tion is the structure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional) .
  • This concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application; for the applicant's fully contoured design described in Fig.
  • the entire shoe sole including both the sides and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flat- tened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
  • the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por ⁇ tions is much less than the total thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot
  • the shoe sole thickness of the contoured side portions are the same as the thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning uniform thickness as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections, or at least similar to the thick ⁇ ness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickness variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
  • the shoe sole thickness variation of the applicant's shoe soles is increased in this appli ⁇ cation from 26 to 50 percent, and from 51 percent to 100 percent in some extreme cases, generally in the forefoot, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sec ⁇ tions.
  • This application similarly increases construc ⁇ tive density variations, as most typically measured in durometers on a Shore A scale, to include 26 percent up to 50 percent and from 51 percent to 200 percent.
  • the same variations in shoe bottom sole design can provide similar effects to the variation in shoe sole density described above.
  • any of the above described thick- ness variations from a theoretically ideal stability plane can be used together with any of the above described density or bottom sole design variations. All portions of the shoe sole are included in thickness and density measurement, including the sockliner or insole, the midsole (including heel lift or other thickness vari ⁇ ation measured in the sagittal plane) and bottom or outer sole.
  • the thickness and density varia ⁇ tions described above can be measured from the center of the es ⁇ ential ⁇ tructural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent.
  • Tho ⁇ e element ⁇ are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the heads of the metatarsal ⁇ , and the ba ⁇ e of the fifth metatar ⁇ al, and the head of the fir ⁇ t di ⁇ tal phalange, re ⁇ pectively.
  • the metatarsal heads only the first and fifth metatarsal head ⁇ are u ⁇ ed for ⁇ uch mea ⁇ urement, since only those two are located on lateral portions of the foot and thus proximate to contoured ⁇ tability sides of the applicant's shoe sole.
  • the applicant' ⁇ ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through- out it ⁇ normal range of ⁇ ideway ⁇ pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco ⁇ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand ⁇ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot i ⁇ tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con- trast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe sole ⁇ , including the partially contoured exi ⁇ ting art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the applicant' ⁇ ⁇ hoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer, foot when bare.
  • the exact thick ⁇ ness and material density of the shoe sole side ⁇ and their ⁇ pecific contour will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using ⁇ tandard biomechanical tech ⁇ niques of gait analysi ⁇ to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot ⁇ tability de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide ⁇ are made of mate ⁇ rial ⁇ ufficiently flexible to bend out ea ⁇ ily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole embodiments include the structural and material flexibility to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support neces ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft ⁇ ness of many of the shoe sole materials u ⁇ ed in shoe soles in the existing art cause instability in the form of abnormally exces ⁇ ive foot pronation and supination.
  • a shoe according to the '714 invention comprises a sole having at least a portion thereof following the contour of a theoretically ideal stability plane, and which fur ⁇ ther includes rounded edges at the finishing edge of the sole after the last point where the constant shoe sole thicknes ⁇ i ⁇ maintained. Thu ⁇ , the upper surface of the sole does not provide an unsupported portion that creates a destabilizing torque and the bottom surface does not provide an unnatural pivoting edge.
  • the shoe in another aspect in the '714 application, includes a naturally contoured sole structure exhi- biting natural deformation which closely parallels the natural deformation of a foot under the same load.
  • the naturally contoured side por ⁇ tion of the ⁇ ole extend ⁇ to contours underneath the load- bearing foot.
  • the sole portion is abbreviated along its ⁇ ides to e ⁇ ential ⁇ upport and propul ⁇ ion elements wherein those elements are combined and integrated into the same di ⁇ continuous shoe sole structural elements underneath the foot, which approxi- mate the principal structural elements of a human foot and their natural articulation between elements.
  • the density of the abbreviated shoe sole can be greater than the density of the material used in an unabbreviated shoe sole to compensate for increased pres ⁇ ure loading.
  • the essential support elements include the base and lateral tubero ⁇ ity of the calcaneu ⁇ , heads of the metatarsal, and the base of the fifth metatarsal.
  • the '714 application shoe sole is naturally contoured, paralleling the ⁇ hape of the foot in order to parallel it ⁇ natural deformation, and made from a mate ⁇ rial which, when under load and tilting to the ⁇ ide, deform ⁇ in a manner which clo ⁇ ely parallel ⁇ that of the foot of it ⁇ wearer, while retaining nearly the ⁇ ame amount of contact of the shoe sole with the ground as in its upright state under load.
  • a deformable shoe sole according to the invention may have its sides bent inwardly somewhat so that when worn the sides bend out easily to approximate a custom fit.
  • a shoe according to the '478 invention comprises a sole having at lea ⁇ t a portion thereof following approximately the contour of a theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane, preferably applied to a naturally contoured ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole approximating the contour of a human foot.
  • the shoe sole thickness of the contoured side portions are at least similar to the thickne ⁇ of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning either a thicknes ⁇ variation from 5 to 10 percent or from 11 to 25 percent, a ⁇ measured in frontal or transverse plane cros ⁇ ⁇ ections.
  • the shoe in another aspect of the '478 invention, includes a naturally contoured sole structure exhi- biting natural deformation which closely parallels the natural deformation of a foot under the ⁇ ame load, and having a contour which approximate ⁇ , but increa ⁇ e ⁇ beyond the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane.
  • ⁇ hoe sole thicknes ⁇ i ⁇ increased beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane, greater than natural stability results; when thickness is decreased, greater than natu ⁇ ral motion result ⁇ .
  • ⁇ uch variations are consistent through all frontal plane cross section ⁇ so that there are proportionally equal increases to the theoretically ideal stability plane from front to back.
  • a 25 percent thicknes ⁇ increase in the lateral stability sides of the forefoot of the shoe sole would also have a 25 percent increase ⁇ in lateral ⁇ tability ⁇ ides proximate to the base of the fifth metatarsal of a wearer's foot and a 25 increase in the lateral stability sides of the heel of the shoe sole.
  • the thickness may increase, then decrease at respective adjacent loca ⁇ tions, or vary in other thickness sequences.
  • the thick ⁇ ness variations may be symmetrical on both side ⁇ , or a ⁇ ymmetrical, particularly ⁇ ince it may be de ⁇ irable to provide greater ⁇ tability for the medial ⁇ ide than the lateral side to compensate for common pronation problems.
  • the variation pattern of the right shoe can vary from that of the left shoe. Variation in shoe sole density or bottom sole tread can al ⁇ o provide reduced but ⁇ imilar effect ⁇ .
  • Thi ⁇ invention relates to shoe sole ⁇ tructure ⁇ that are formed to conform to the all or part of the ⁇ hape of the wearer' ⁇ foot ⁇ ole, either under a body weight load (defined as one body weight or alternately as any body weight force) , but without contoured stability ⁇ ide ⁇ as defined by the applicant.
  • a body weight load defined as one body weight or alternately as any body weight force
  • this invention relates to variations in the structure of such soles using a theoretically ideal stability plane a ⁇ a basic concept, especially including structures exceeding that plane.
  • this invention relates to contoured shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ides that provide support for sideway ⁇ tilting of any angular amount from zero degree ⁇ to 150 degrees at lea ⁇ t for such contoured sides proximate to any one or more or all of the essential stability or propulsion structures of the foot, as defined below and previously.
  • the ⁇ e and other feature ⁇ of the invention will become apparent from the detailed de ⁇ cription of the invention which follow ⁇ .
  • Figs. 1 through 9 are from prior copending applications of the applicant, with some new textual specification added.
  • Figs. 1-3 are from the '714 appli ⁇ cation;
  • Fig ⁇ . 4-8 are from the '478 application; and
  • Fig ⁇ . IA to IC [8] illu ⁇ trate functionally the principles of natural deformation as applied to the shoe soles of the '667 and '714 invention.
  • Fig. 2 shows variations in the relative density of the shoe ⁇ ole including the ⁇ hoe in ⁇ ole to maximize an ability of the sole to deform naturally.
  • Fig. 3 shows a shoe having naturally contoured sides bent inwardly somewhat from a normal size so then when worn the ⁇ hoe approximates a custom fit.
  • Fig. 4 show ⁇ a frontal plane cross section at the heel portion of a shoe with naturally contoured side ⁇ like tho ⁇ e of Fig. 24, wherein a portion of the shoe sole thicknes ⁇ i ⁇ increased beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Fig. 5 is a view ⁇ imilar to Fig. 4, but of a shoe with fully contoured sides wherein the sole thick- ness increases with increasing di ⁇ tance from the center line of the ground-engaging portion of the sole.
  • Fig. 6 is a view ⁇ imilar to Fig ⁇ . 29 and 30 showing still another density variation, one which is asymmetrical.
  • Fig. 7 show ⁇ an embodiment like Fig. 25 but wherein a portion of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s is decreased to le ⁇ than the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane.
  • Fig. 8 shows a bottom sole tread design that provides a similar density variation as that in Fig. 6.
  • Fig. 9 is the applicant's new ⁇ hoe sole design in a sequential series of frontal plane cros ⁇ sections of the heel at the ankle joint area that correspond ⁇ exactly to the Fig. 42 ⁇ eries below.
  • Fig. 10 is the applicant's custom fit design utilizing downsized flexible contoured ⁇ hoe sole sides in combination with a thickness greater than the theoreti- cally ideal stability plane.
  • Fig. 11 i ⁇ the ⁇ ame custom fit de ⁇ ign in combi ⁇ nation with ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide portion ⁇ having a material with greater den ⁇ ity than the sole portion.
  • Figs. 12-23 are from the '714 application.
  • Fig. 12 is a rear view of a heel of a foot for explaining the use of a stationery sprain simulation test.
  • Fig. 13 is a rear view of a conventional run ⁇ ning shoe unstably rotating about an edge of its sole when the shoe sole is tilted to the outside.
  • Fig. 14 is a diagram of the forces on a foot when rotating in a shoe of the type shown in Fig. 2.
  • Fig. 15 is a view similar to Fig. 3 but showing further continued rotation of a foot in a shoe of the type shown in Fig. 2.
  • Fig. 16 is a force diagram during rotation of a shoe having motion control devices and heel counters.
  • Fig. 18 shows an approach for minimizing desta ⁇ bilizing torque by providing only direct ⁇ tructural sup ⁇ port and by rounding edges of the ⁇ ole and its outer and inner surfaces.
  • Fig. 19 shows a shoe sole having a fully con ⁇ toured design but having side ⁇ which are abbreviated to the e ⁇ sential structural stability and propul ⁇ ion ele- ment ⁇ that are combined and integrated into discontinuous structural elements underneath the foot that simulate those of the foot.
  • Fig. 20 is a diagram serving as a basi ⁇ for an expanded di ⁇ cu ⁇ ion of a correct approach for measuring shoe sole thickness.
  • Fig. 21 show ⁇ ⁇ everal embodiment ⁇ wherein the bottom ⁇ ole include ⁇ mo ⁇ t or all of the ⁇ pecial contours of the new designs and retains a flat upper surface.
  • Fig. 23 shows, in Figs. 23A - 23C, the enhance ⁇ ment of Fig. 39 applied to the naturally contoured sides embodiment of the invention.
  • Figs. 24-34 are from the '478 application.
  • Fig. 24 hows, in frontal plane cros ⁇ section at the heel portion of a shoe, the applicant's prior invention of a shoe sole with naturally contoured sides based on a theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Fig. 25 show ⁇ , again in frontal plane cross section, the most general case of the applicant's prior invention, a fully contoured shoe sole that follows the natural contour of the bottom of the foot a ⁇ well a ⁇ its side ⁇ , also based on the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane.
  • Fig. 28 i ⁇ a view ⁇ imilar to Fig ⁇ . 4 ,5 & 27 wherein the ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ e ⁇ vary in diver ⁇ e ⁇ equence ⁇ .
  • Fig. 29 i ⁇ a frontal plane cross section show- ing a density variation in the midsole.
  • Fig. 30 is a view ⁇ imilar to Fig. 29 wherein the firmest density material is at the outermost edge of the midsole contour.
  • Fig. 31 shows a variation in the thicknes ⁇ of the ⁇ ole for the quadrant embodiment which i ⁇ greater than a theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Fig. 32 shows a quadrant embodiment as in Fig. 31 wherein the density of the sole varies.
  • Fig. 33 show ⁇ embodiments like Figs. 24 through 26 but wherein a portion of the shoe ⁇ ole thickness is decreased to les ⁇ than the theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Fig. 34 show embodiment ⁇ with side ⁇ both greater and le ⁇ er than the theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Figs. 35-44 are from the '302 application.
  • Fig. 35 is a perspective view of a typical athletic shoe for running known to the prior art to which the invention is applicable.
  • Fig. 36 illustrate ⁇ in a clo ⁇ e-up frontal plane cross section of the heel at the ankle joint the typical shoe of existing art, undeformed by body weight, when tilted sideway ⁇ on the bottom edge.
  • Fig. 37 shows, in the same close-up cross sec ⁇ tion as Fig. 2, the applicant' ⁇ prior invention of a naturally contoured shoe sole design, also tilted out.
  • Fig. 38 shows a rear view of a barefoot heel tilted laterally 20 degrees.
  • Fig. 39 show ⁇ , in a frontal plane cross section at the ankle joint area of the heel, the applicant' ⁇ new invention of ten ⁇ ion ⁇ tabilized ⁇ ide ⁇ applied to hi ⁇ prior naturally contoured shoe ⁇ ole.
  • Fig. 40 ⁇ how ⁇ , in a frontal plane cro ⁇ section close-up, the Fig. 5 de ⁇ ign when tilted to it ⁇ edge, but undeformed by load.
  • Fig. 41 shows, in frontal plane cros ⁇ section at the ankle joint area of the heel, the Fig. 5 design when tilted to its edge and naturally deformed by body weight, though constant shoe sole thicknes ⁇ i ⁇ maintained undeformed.
  • Fig. 42 is a sequential memori ⁇ of frontal plane cross sections of the barefoot heel at the ankle joint area.
  • Fig. 8A is unloaded and upright;
  • Fig. 8B is moder ⁇ ately loaded by full body weight and upright;
  • Fig. 8C is heavily loaded at peak landing force while running and upright; and
  • Fig. 8D is heavily loaded and tilted out laterally to its about 20 degree maximum.
  • Fig. 43 is the applicant's new ⁇ hoe sole de ⁇ ign in a sequential memori ⁇ of frontal plane cro ⁇ sections of the heel at the ankle joint area that correspond ⁇ exactly to the Fig. 8 ⁇ eries above.
  • Fig. 44 is two perspective views and a close-up view of the structure of fibrous connective tissue of the groups of fat cells of the human heel.
  • Fig. 10A show ⁇ a quartered section of the calcaneus and the fat pad cham ⁇ bers below it;
  • Fig. 10B show ⁇ a horizontal plane clo ⁇ e-up of the inner ⁇ tructure ⁇ of an individual chamber;
  • Fig. 10D ⁇ hows a horizontal section of the whorl arrange ⁇ ment of fat pad undemeath the calcaneus.
  • Figs. 45 - 58 are new to this continuation-in- part application.
  • Fig. 45 is similar to Fig. 4, but show ⁇ more extreme thickne ⁇ s increase variations.
  • Fig. 46 is similar to Fig. 5, but show ⁇ more extreme thickne ⁇ increa ⁇ e variation ⁇ .
  • Fig. 48 is similar to Fig. 7, but shows more extreme thicknes ⁇ decrea ⁇ e variation ⁇ .
  • Fig. 49 i ⁇ ⁇ imilar to Fig. 8, but ⁇ hows more extreme bottom ⁇ ole tread pattern variation ⁇ .
  • Fig. 50 is similar to Fig. 10, but shows more extreme thicknes ⁇ increase variations
  • Fig. 51 is similar to Fig. ll, but show ⁇ more extreme den ⁇ ity variations.
  • Fig. 52 is similar to Fig. IA, but shows on the right side an upper shoe sole surface of the contoured side that is complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole; on the left side Fig. 52 show ⁇ an upper ⁇ ur ⁇ face between complementary and parallel to the flat ground and a lower surface of the contoured shoe sole side that is not in contact with the ground.
  • Fig. 53 is like Fig. 27 of the '819 Patent, but with angular measurement ⁇ of the contoured ⁇ hoe sole sides indicated from zero degrees to 180 degrees.
  • Fig. 54 is similar to Fig. 19 of the '819 Pat ⁇ ent, but without contoured stability sides.
  • Figs. 55-56 are similar to Figs. 20-21 of the
  • Fig. 58 is based on Fig. IB but also show ⁇ , for purpo ⁇ e ⁇ of illu ⁇ tration, on the right side a relative thickness increase of the contoured shoe sole ⁇ ide for that portion of the contoured shoe sole side beyond the limit of the full range of normal sideways foot inversion and eversion motion, and on the left side, a ⁇ imilar relative density increase.
  • Figs. 1A-C illustrate, in frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane cro ⁇ s sections in the heel area, the applicant's concept of the theoretically ideal stability plane applied to shoe sole ⁇ .
  • Fig ⁇ . 1A-1C illu ⁇ trate clearly the principle of natural deformation as it applies to the applicant's design, even though design diagrams like those preceding (and in his previous applications already referenced) are normally ⁇ hown in an ideal ⁇ tate, without any functional deformation, obviou ⁇ ly to ⁇ how their exact shape for proper construction. That natural structural shape, with its contour paralleling the foot, enables the shoe sole to deform naturally like the foot. In the applicant's invention, the natural deformation feature creates such an important functional advantage it will be illustrated and discussed here fully. Note in the figures that even when the shoe sole shape is deformed, the constant ⁇ hoe sole thickness in the frontal plane feature of the inven- tion is maintained.
  • Fig. IA is Fig. 8A in the applicant's U.S. Patent Application No.07/400,714 and Fig. 15 in his 07/239,667 Application.
  • Fig. IA shows a fully contoured shoe sole design that follows the natural contour of all of the foot sole, the bottom as well a ⁇ the sides.
  • the fully contoured shoe sole assumes that the resulting slightly rounded bottom when unloaded will deform under load a ⁇ ⁇ hown in Fig. IB and flatten ju ⁇ t as the human foot bottom i ⁇ slightly round unloaded but flattens under load. Therefore, the shoe sole material must be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot.
  • Fig. IA would deform by flattening to look e ⁇ entially like Fig. IB.
  • Fig ⁇ . IA and IB show in frontal plane cross section the essential concept underlying this invention, the theoretically ideal stability plane which is also theoretically ideal for efficient natural motion of all kinds, including running, jogging or walking.
  • the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 is determined, first, by the de ⁇ ired ⁇ hoe sole thick- ness ( ⁇ ) in a frontal plane cro ⁇ s section, and, ⁇ econd, by the natural shape of the individual's foot ⁇ urface 29.
  • the theoreti ⁇ cally ideal ⁇ tability plane for any particular individual (or ⁇ ize average of individual ⁇ ) i ⁇ determined, first, by the given frontal plane cros ⁇ ⁇ ection ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ ( ⁇ ) ; ⁇ econd, by the natural ⁇ hape of the individual' ⁇ foot; and, third, by the frontal plane cross section width of the individual' ⁇ load-bearing footprint which i ⁇ defined a ⁇ the ⁇ upper surface of the shoe sole that is in physical contact with and support ⁇ the human foot sole.
  • Fig. IB is Fig. 8B of the '714 application and show ⁇ the same fully contoured design when upright, under normal load (body weight) and therefore deformed natu ⁇ rally in a manner very closely paralleling the natural deformation under the same load of the foot.
  • An almo ⁇ t identical portion of the foot sole that is flattened in deformation is al ⁇ o flatten in deformation in the shoe sole.
  • Fig. IC is Fig. 8C of the '714 application and shows the same design when tilted outward 20 degrees laterally, the normal barefoot limit; with virtually equal accuracy it shows the opposite foot tilted 20 degrees inward, in fairly severe pronation.
  • Fig. IC also represents with reasonable accu ⁇ racy a shoe sole design corresponding to Fig. IB, a natu- rally contoured shoe sole with a conventional built-in flattening deformation, as in Fig. 14 of the above refer ⁇ enced September 2, 1988, Application, except that design would have a slight crimp at 145.
  • the naturally contoured side design in Fig. IB is a more conventional, conservative design that is a special case of the more generally fully contoured de ⁇ ign in Fig. IA, which is the closest to the natural form of the foot, but the least conventional.
  • the appli ⁇ cant's Fig 1 invention is the ⁇ tructure of a conventional ⁇ hoe sole that has been modified by having it ⁇ ⁇ ide ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conforms to the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application.
  • the entire shoe sole including both the sides and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to the shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
  • the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickness of the contoured side portions is much less than the thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, wherea ⁇ in the applicant's ⁇ hoe sole inventions in the '819 Patent the shoe sole thickne ⁇ of the contoured side portions are the ⁇ ame as the thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot.
  • the applicant's ⁇ hoe sole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer' ⁇ foot when bare through ⁇ out it ⁇ normal range of ⁇ ideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phase ⁇ of loco ⁇ motion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when ⁇ aid foot i ⁇ tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contra ⁇ t to un ⁇ table and inflexible conventional ⁇ hoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain that natural stability and uninterrupted motion.
  • the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo ⁇ retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe ⁇ ole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sides that is provided said shoe sole being ⁇ ufficient to maintain intact the firm ⁇ tability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
  • Fig. IA is Fig. 15 in the applicant's 07/239,667 Application; however, it does not show the heel lift 38 which is included in the original Fig. 15.
  • That heel lift is shown with constant frontal or transverse plane thicknes ⁇ , since it is oriented con ⁇ ventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole; consequently, the thicknes ⁇ of the heel lift decreases uniformly in the frontal or transverse plane between the heel and the forefoot when moving forward along the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the con- ventional heel wedge, or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknes ⁇ variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment.
  • the heel wedge can be rotated inward in the horizontal plane ⁇ o that it is located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
  • Fig. 2 i ⁇ Fig. 9 of the '714 application shows, in frontal or transver ⁇ e plane cross section in the heel area, the preferred relative density of the shoe sole, including the insole a ⁇ a part, order to maximize the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole's ability to deform naturally following the natural deformation of the foot sole.
  • the ⁇ ofte ⁇ t and mo ⁇ t flexible material 147 ⁇ hould be clo ⁇ est to the foot sole, with a progression through les ⁇ ⁇ oft 148 to the firme ⁇ t and least flexible 149 at the outermost shoe sole layer, the bottom sole.
  • Fig. 3 which is a frontal or transverse plane cro ⁇ s section at the heel, is Fig. 10 from the appli ⁇ cant's copending U. S. Patent Application No. 07/400,714, filed August 30, 1989.
  • Fig. 3 illustrates that the applicant's naturally contoured ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide ⁇ can be made to provide a fit so close as to approximate a custom fit.
  • the shoe sole ⁇ so produced will very gently hold the side ⁇ of each individual foot exactly. Since the shoe sole i ⁇ designed as described in connection with
  • Fig. 2 (Fig. 9 of the applicant's copending application No. 07/400,714) to deform easily and naturally like that of the bare foot, it will deform easily to provide this de ⁇ igned-in custom fit.
  • This approach applies to the fully contoured design described here in Fig. IA (Fig. 8A of the '714 application) and in Fig. 15, United States Patent Appli ⁇ cation 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988), as well, which would be even more effective than the naturally contoured sides design shown in Fig. 3.
  • the under ⁇ ized flexible ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides allow the applicant's shoe sole invention ⁇ ba ⁇ ed on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sides can be built on standard shoe last ⁇ , even though conceptually tho ⁇ e ⁇ ide ⁇ conform closely to the specific ⁇ hape of the indi- vidual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to conform when on the wearer's foot ⁇ ole.
  • Fig. 3 shows the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer;
  • the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the shoe last, which is a ⁇ umed to be a rea ⁇ onably accurate approximation of the ⁇ hape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane 51.
  • the dashed line ⁇ 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the shoe sole would be when the shoe is put on the foot of the wearer. Numbering with the figures in this application is consistent with the numbering used in prior applica- tions of the applicant.
  • the Fig. 3 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thu ⁇ ake ⁇ much more practical the applicant' ⁇ earlier underlying naturally contoured de ⁇ ign ⁇ ⁇ hown in Figs. 1A-C.
  • the appli ⁇ cant' ⁇ invention i ⁇ the ⁇ tructure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole side ⁇ being flat on the ground, a ⁇ is con ⁇ ventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application.
  • Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application.
  • the ⁇ hoe sole thicknes ⁇ of the contoured ⁇ ide portions is much less than the thicknes ⁇ of the ⁇ ole portion directly underneath the foot, wherea ⁇ in the applicant' ⁇ shoe sole inventions the ⁇ hoe sole thickne ⁇ s of the contoured side portions are the same as the thickness of the sole por ⁇ tion directly underneath the foot.
  • the side ⁇ of the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural ⁇ tability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through ⁇ out its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco- motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand ⁇ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con ⁇ trast to unstable and inflexible conventional ⁇ hoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the applicant' ⁇ shoe sole invention extend ⁇ ufficiently far up the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the shoe sole sides of the Fig. 3 invention are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibility to deform in parallel to the natural deforma ⁇ tion of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics cre ⁇ ated by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe ⁇ ole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural ⁇ upport necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft ⁇ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • Fig. 3 is a frontal or transver ⁇ e plane cross section at the heel, so the structure is shown at one of the es ⁇ ential ⁇ tructural support and propulsion elements, as specified by applicant in his copending 07/239,667 application in its Fig. 21 specification.
  • the essential structural support elements are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus 95, the heads of the metatar- ⁇ al ⁇ 96, and the base of the fifth metatarsal 97; the e ⁇ ential propulsion element is the head of the first distal phalange 98.
  • the Fig. 3 shoe sole structure can be abbreviated along its side ⁇ to only the e ⁇ ential structural support and propulsion elements, like Fig. 21 of the '667 application.
  • the Fig. 3 design can also be abbreviated underneath the shoe sole to the same es ⁇ en ⁇ tial ⁇ tructural ⁇ upport and propulsion elements, as shown in Fig. 28 of the '667 Application.
  • Fig. IA the applicant has previously shown heel lifts with con ⁇ tant frontal or transverse plane thickness, since it is ori ⁇ ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickness variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be rotated inward in the horizontal plane so that it is located per ⁇ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; ⁇ uch a orientation may provide better, more natural ⁇ upport to the ⁇ ubtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen ⁇ ubtalar joint axi ⁇ , instead of the frontal plane.
  • the sides of the shoe sole ⁇ tructure de ⁇ cribed under Fig. 3 can al ⁇ o be used to form a slightly le ⁇ optimal ⁇ tructure: a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its ⁇ ide ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • the clo ⁇ er the sides are to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, the better as a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 3 to a shape ⁇ lightly ⁇ maller than the wearer' shape is both pos ⁇ ible and more effective than conventional flat ⁇ hoe sole side ⁇ .
  • ⁇ ome ca ⁇ e ⁇ such as for diabetic patients, it may be optimal to have relatively loose shoe sole side ⁇ providing no conforming pre ⁇ ure of the ⁇ hoe sole on the tender foot ⁇ ole; in ⁇ uch ca ⁇ e ⁇ , the ⁇ hape of the flexible ⁇ hoe upper ⁇ , which can even be made with very ela ⁇ tic material ⁇ such as lycra and ⁇ pandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the shoe sole, to conform to the shape of the foot.
  • the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just as the foot sole deforms to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load.
  • the shoe sole side ⁇ can even be conventionally flat on the ground — the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright. Consequently, the appli ⁇ cant's shoe sole invention, stated most broadly, includes any shoe sole - whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a shape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole — that deforms to conform to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
  • Fig. 4 is Fig. 4 from the applicant's copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478, filed October 3, 1989.
  • Fig. 4 illustrates, in frontal or transverse plane cross section in the heel area, the applicant's new inven ⁇ tion of shoe sole side thicknes ⁇ increa ⁇ ing beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane to increase stability somewhat beyond its natural level. The unavoidable trade-off resulting is that natural motion would be restricted somewhat and the weight of the shoe sole would increase somewhat.
  • Fig. 4 shows a situation wherein the thickne ⁇ s of the sole at each of the opposed sides is thicker at the portions of the sole 31a by a thicknes ⁇ which gradu ⁇ ally varies continuously from a thickness (s) through a thickne ⁇ s (s+sl) , to a thickne ⁇ ( ⁇ +s2) .
  • Fig. 4 (like Fig ⁇ . 1 and 2 of the '478 application) allows the shoe sole to deform naturally closely paralleling the natural deformation of the barefoot under load; in addition, shoe sole material must be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot.
  • the new designs retain the essential novel aspect of the earlier design ⁇ ; namely, contouring the shape of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole to the shape of the human foot. The difference is that the shoe ⁇ ole thickness in the frontal plane is allowed to vary rather than remain uni- formly constant. More specifically, Fig. 4 (and Figs.
  • any such mass-produced corrective shoes for the general population would have contoured side portion thicknesses exceeding the theoretically ideal stability plane by an amount of 5 percent to 10 percent , preferably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inver ⁇ sion and eversion, which is sideways or lateral foot motion.
  • contoured side portion on the order of 11 to 25 percent more than the theoretically ideal stability plane, again, prefer ⁇ ably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inver ⁇ ion and ever ⁇ ion, which i ⁇ sideways or lateral foot motion.
  • the optimal contour for the increased contoured side thickness may also be determined empirically.
  • the applicant' ⁇ Fig. 4 inven ⁇ tion i ⁇ the ⁇ tructure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its side ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape of the outer sur ⁇ face of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sides conforming to the ground by paralleling it, as is conventional) ; thi ⁇ concept i ⁇ like that de ⁇ cribed in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application.
  • Fig. 4 for the applicant's fully contoured design described in Fig.
  • the entire shoe sole including both the sides and the portion directly under ⁇ neath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot ⁇ ole ⁇ hown in Fig. 4.
  • the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por- tions, including every layer or portion, is much les ⁇ than the total thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereas in the applicant' ⁇ '478 shoe sole invention the shoe sole thickness of the contoured side portions are at least similar to the thicknes ⁇ of the ⁇ ole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickne ⁇ variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
  • the ⁇ ides of the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion extend sufficiently far up the side ⁇ of the wearer's foot ⁇ ole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through ⁇ out it ⁇ normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco- motion of the wearer, including when the wearer i ⁇ stand ⁇ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe sole ⁇ , including the partially contoured exi ⁇ ting art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact thickne ⁇ of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides and their specific contour will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using ⁇ tandard biomechanical technique ⁇ of gait analy ⁇ i ⁇ to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stability described above.
  • the amount of any ⁇ hoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo ⁇ retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ tability de ⁇ ired and the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole weight and bulk required to provide ⁇ aid ⁇ tability; the amount of ⁇ aid coplanar contoured ⁇ ide ⁇ that i ⁇ provided ⁇ aid ⁇ hoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the u ⁇ e for which the ⁇ hoe i ⁇ intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
  • the applicant' ⁇ preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support neces ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and ⁇ upination, a ⁇ if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft ⁇ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • the applicant has previously shown heel lift ⁇ with con ⁇ tant frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane thickness, since it is ori- ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other shoe sole thickne ⁇ variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located per ⁇ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degree ⁇ medially, although a different angle can be u ⁇ ed ba ⁇ e on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thicknes ⁇ in a vertical plane perpendicular to the cho ⁇ en ⁇ ubtalar joint axi ⁇ , in ⁇ tead of the frontal plane.
  • Fig. 5 i ⁇ Fig. 5 in the applicant' ⁇ copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478 and ⁇ how ⁇ , in frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane cro ⁇ ⁇ ection in the heel area, a variation of the enhanced fully contoured design wherein the shoe sole begins to thicken beyond the theo- retically ideal ⁇ tability plane 51 at the contoured ⁇ ides portion, preferably at least in that part of the con ⁇ toured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bear ⁇ ing during the full range of inversion and eversion, which is ⁇ ideway ⁇ or lateral foot motion.
  • Fig. 6 is Fig. 10 in the applicant's copending '478 Application and show ⁇ , in frontal or transverse plane cros ⁇ ⁇ ection in the heel area, that ⁇ imilar varia ⁇ tion ⁇ in shoe midsole (other portions of the shoe sole area not shown) density can provide similar but reduced effects to the variations in shoe sole thickness described previously in Figs. 4 and 5.
  • the major advan ⁇ tage of this approach is that the structural theoreti ⁇ cally ideal stability plane i ⁇ retained, ⁇ o that natu- rally optimal stability and efficient motion are retained to the maximum extent pos ⁇ ible.
  • the ⁇ e con ⁇ tructive den ⁇ ⁇ ity variation ⁇ are mo ⁇ t typically mea ⁇ ured in durometer ⁇ on a Shore A scale, to include from 5 percent to 10 per ⁇ cent and from 11 percent up to 25 percent.
  • the density variations are located preferably at lea ⁇ t in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inversion and ever ⁇ sion, which is sideway ⁇ or lateral foot motion.
  • Den ⁇ ity variation ⁇ can and do, of cour ⁇ e, al ⁇ o occur in other layer ⁇ of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole, ⁇ uch as the bottom sole and the inner ⁇ ole, and can occur in any combination and in ⁇ ymmetrical or asymmetrical pat- terns between layers or between frontal or transverse plane cros ⁇ sections.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inven- tion maintains the natural ⁇ tability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through ⁇ out its normal range of sideway ⁇ pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phase ⁇ of loco ⁇ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer i ⁇ stand- ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con ⁇ trast to un ⁇ table and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the ⁇ ides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact mate ⁇ rial den ⁇ ity of the ⁇ hoe sole side ⁇ will be determined empirically for individual ⁇ and group ⁇ using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine tho ⁇ e combinations that best provide the barefoot stabil ⁇ ity described above.
  • the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo- retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured side ⁇ that i ⁇ provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — ⁇ uch as normal or exces ⁇ ive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil- ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the exces ⁇ ive ⁇ oft- ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe sole ⁇ in the exi ⁇ ting art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • Fig. IA the applicant has previously shown heel lifts with constant frontal or transverse plane thickness, since it is ori- ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe ⁇ ole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other shoe sole thickness variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be u ⁇ ed ba ⁇ e on individual or group te ⁇ ting; ⁇ uch a orientation may provide better, more natural ⁇ upport to the ⁇ ubtalar joint, through which critical pronation and ⁇ upination motion occur.
  • the applicant' ⁇ theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane concept would teach that ⁇ uch a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thicknes ⁇ in a vertical plane perpendicular to the cho ⁇ en ⁇ ubtalar joint axi ⁇ , in ⁇ tead of the frontal plane.
  • Fig. 7 show ⁇ a embodiment like the fully contoured design in Fig. 5, but with a show ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ decreas ⁇ ing with increasing distance from the center portion of the sole.
  • Fig. 8 is Fig. 13 of the '478 Application and show ⁇ , in frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane cross section, a bottom sole tread design that provides about the same overall shoe sole density variation as that provided in Fig. 6 by midsole density variation. The less supporting tread there is under any particular portion of the shoe sole, the less effective overall shoe density there i ⁇ , since the midsole above that portion will deform more easily than if it were fully supported.
  • Fig. 8 from the '478 is illu ⁇ trative of the applicant' ⁇ point that bottom ⁇ ole tread patterns, just like midsole or bottom sole or inner sole density, directly affect the actual structural support the foot receives from the shoe sole.
  • bottom ⁇ ole tread patterns just like midsole or bottom sole or inner sole density
  • tread patterns directly affect the actual structural support the foot receives from the shoe sole.
  • a typical example in the real world is the popular "center of pres ⁇ ure" tread pattern, which is like a backward horse ⁇ shoe attached to the heel that leaves the heel area directly under the calcaneus un ⁇ upported by tread, ⁇ o that all of the weight bearing load in the heel area i ⁇ transmitted to outside edge treads. Variations of this pattern are extremely common in athletic shoes and are nearly universal in running shoes, of which the 1991 Nike 180 model and the Avia "cantilever" series are examples.
  • the applicant's '478 shoe ⁇ ole invention can, therefore, utilize bottom sole tread patterns like any these common examples, together or even in the absence of any other shoe sole thickness or density variation, to achieve an effective thicknes ⁇ greater than the theoreti- cally ideal stability plane, in order to achieve greater stability than the shoe sole would otherwise provide, as discussed earlier under Fig ⁇ . 4-6.
  • shoe bottom or outer sole tread patterns can be fairly irregular and/or complex and can thus make difficult the measurement of the outer load-bearing sur ⁇ face of the shoe sole. Consequently, thickne ⁇ varia ⁇ tions in small portions of the shoe sole that will deform or compress without significant overall resi ⁇ tance under a wearer's body weight load to the thickness of the over- all load-bearing plane of the shoe out sole should be ignored during measurement, whether such easy deformation is made possible by very high point pressure or by the use of relatively compressible outsole (or underlying midsole) material ⁇ .
  • Portion ⁇ of the out ⁇ ole bottom ⁇ urface compo ⁇ ed of material ⁇ (or made of a delicate ⁇ tructure, much like the ⁇ mall rai ⁇ ed marker ⁇ on new tire treads to prove the tire i ⁇ brand new and unused) that wear relatively quickly, so that thicknes ⁇ variations that exist when the shoe sole is new and unused, but disappear quickly in use, should also be ignored when measuring shoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s in frontal or transver ⁇ e plane cro ⁇ s sections.
  • midsole thicknes ⁇ variations of unused shoe sole ⁇ due to the u ⁇ e of material ⁇ or structures that compact or expand quickly after use should also be ignore when measuring shoe sole thickne ⁇ in frontal or trans ⁇ verse plane cros ⁇ sections.
  • the applicant' ⁇ ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole invention maintain ⁇ intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion extend sufficiently far up the ⁇ ides of the wearer's foot ⁇ ole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through ⁇ out its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phase ⁇ of loco- motion of the wearer, including when the wearer i ⁇ ⁇ tand- ing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot i ⁇ tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contra ⁇ t to un ⁇ table and inflexible conventional shoe sole ⁇ , including the partially contoured exi ⁇ ting art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the side ⁇ of the wearer' ⁇ foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact thickness and material density of the bottom sole tread, as well a ⁇ the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides and their specific contour, will be determined empirically for individuals and groups u ⁇ ing ⁇ tandard biomechanical technique ⁇ of gait analy ⁇ i ⁇ to determine tho ⁇ e combination ⁇ that be ⁇ t provide the barefoot ⁇ tability de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the optimal pressure-tran ⁇ mitting medium is that which most clo ⁇ ely approximate ⁇ the fat pad ⁇ of the foot; ⁇ ilicone gel i ⁇ probably most optimal of materials currently readily available, but future improvements are probable; since it transmits pressure indirectly, in that it compresses in volume under pressure, gas is significantly les ⁇ optimal.
  • the gas, gel, or liquid, or any other effective material can be further encapsulated itself, in addition to the sides of the shoe sole, to control leakage and maintain uniformity, as is common conventionally, and can be sub ⁇ divided into any practical number of encap ⁇ ulated areas within a compartment, again as is common conventionally.
  • the relative thickness of the cushioning compartment 161 can vary, as can the bottom sole 149 and the upper mid- ⁇ ole 147, and can be consistent or differ in various areas of the shoe sole; the optimal relative sizes should be those that approximate mo ⁇ t closely those of the aver ⁇ age human foot, which sugge ⁇ t ⁇ both smaller upper and lower sole ⁇ and a larger cushioning compartment than shown in Fig. 9. And the cu ⁇ hioning compartment ⁇ or pads 161 can be placed anywhere from directly underneath the foot, like an insole, to directly above the bottom sole. Optimally, the amount of compression created by a given load in any cushioning compartment 161 should be tuned to approximate as closely as pos ⁇ ible the compre ⁇ ion under the corre ⁇ ponding fat pad of the foot.
  • Fig. 9 conforms to the natural contour of the foot and to the natural method of transmitting bottom pre ⁇ sure into side ten ⁇ ion in the flexible but relatively non-stretching (the actual optimal elasticity will require empirical studies) side ⁇ of the shoe sole.
  • Fig. 9D show ⁇ the ⁇ ame shoe sole design when fully loaded and tilted to the natural 20 degree lateral limit, like Fig. 41D.
  • Fig. 9D show ⁇ that an added sta ⁇ bility benefit of the natural cushioning system for shoe soles is that the effective thickne ⁇ s of the shoe sole is reduced by compres ⁇ ion on the ⁇ ide ⁇ o that the potential destabilizing lever arm represented by the shoe sole thickness is also reduced, so foot and ankle stability is increa ⁇ ed.
  • FIG. 9 de ⁇ ign i ⁇ that the upper mid ⁇ ole ⁇ hoe surface can move in any horizontal direction, either sideway ⁇ or front to back in order to ab ⁇ orb ⁇ hearing force ⁇ ; that shearing motion is con ⁇ trolled by tension in the sides.
  • the right side of Figs. 9A-D is modified to provide a natural crea ⁇ e or upward taper 162, which allows complete side compres ⁇ ion without binding or bunching between the upper and lower shoe sole layers 147, 148, and 149; the shoe sole crease 162 parallels exactly a similar crease or taper 163 in the human foot.
  • FIG. 9A-D Another possible variation of joining shoe upper to shoe bottom sole is on the right (lateral) side of Figs. 9A-D, which makes use of the fact that it is optimal for the tension absorbing shoe sole sides, whether shoe upper or bottom sole, to coincide with the Theoretically Ideal Stability Plane along the side of the shoe sole beyond that point reached when the shoe is tilted to the foot's natural limit, so that no destabil ⁇ izing shoe ⁇ ole lever arm i ⁇ created when the ⁇ hoe i ⁇ tilted fully, a ⁇ in Fig. 9D.
  • the joint may be moved up ⁇ lightly so that the fabric ⁇ ide does not come in contact with the ground, or it may be cover with a coating to provide both traction and fabric protection.
  • Fig. 9 design pro ⁇ vides a structural basis for the shoe sole to conform very easily to the natural shape of the human foot and to parallel easily the natural deformation flattening of the foot during load-bearing motion on the ground. This is true even if the shoe ⁇ ole i ⁇ made conventionally with a flat ⁇ ole, a ⁇ long a ⁇ rigid structures such as heel coun ⁇ ters and motion control devices are not used; though not optimal, such a conventional flat shoe made like Fig. 9 would provide the essential features of the new invention resulting in significantly improved cushioning and sta ⁇ bility.
  • the Fig. 9 design could also be applied to intermediate-shaped shoe soles that neither conform to the flat ground or the naturally contoured foot.
  • the Fig. 9 design can be applied to the appli ⁇ cant's other designs, such as those described in his pending U.S. application No. 07/416,478, filed on October 3, 1989.
  • the Fig. 9 de ⁇ ign ⁇ how ⁇ a ⁇ hoe con- ⁇ truction for a ⁇ hoe, including: a ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole with a com ⁇ partment or compartment ⁇ under the ⁇ tructural elements of the human foot, including at least the heel; the com ⁇ partment or compartments contains a pres ⁇ ure-tran ⁇ mitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel; a portion of the upper surface of the shoe sole compartment firmly contacts the lower surface of said compartment during normal load- bearing; and pres ⁇ ure from the load-bearing is transmit- tedprogressively at lea ⁇ t in part to the relatively inela ⁇ tic sides, top and bottom of the shoe sole compart ⁇ ment or compartments, producing tension.
  • the applicant's Fig. 9 invention can be com ⁇ bined with the Fig. 3 invention, although the combination is not shown; the Fig. 9 invention can be combined with Figs. 10 and 11 below. Also not shown, but useful com ⁇ binations, is the applicant's Figs. 3, 10 and 11 inven ⁇ tions with all of the applicant's deformation ⁇ ipes inventions, the first of a sequence of applications on various embodiments of that sipes invention is U.S. No. 07/424,509, filed October 20, 1989, and with his inven ⁇ tions based on other sagittal plane or long axis shoe sole thickness variations described in U.S. Application No. 07/469,313, filed January 24, 1990.
  • All of the applicant's shoe sole invention men ⁇ tioned immediately above maintain intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer' ⁇ foot, that ⁇ tability as demon ⁇ strated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar demonstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the applicant's invention main ⁇ tains the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unsta- ble and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf ⁇ ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact material den ⁇ sity of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysi ⁇ to determine tho ⁇ e combinations that best provide the barefoot stabil ⁇ ity described above.
  • the amount of any shoe sole side por ⁇ tions coplanar with the theoretically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability de ⁇ ired and the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar con ⁇ toured sides that is provided said shoe sole being suffi ⁇ cient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or as exces ⁇ ive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
  • the shoe sole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoe ⁇ are put on the wearer' ⁇ feet and therefore the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a ma ⁇ -produced shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot ⁇ ole a ⁇ if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanic ⁇ created by rigid conventional ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support neces ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft ⁇ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • Fig. 10 was new with this '598 application and is a combination of the shoe sole structure concepts of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; it combines the custom fit design with the contoured sides greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane. It would apply as well to the Fig. 7 design with contoured side ⁇ le ⁇ than the theoretically ideal stability plane, but that combination is not shown. It would also apply to the Fig. 8 design, which ⁇ how ⁇ a bottom sole tread design, but that combination is also not shown.
  • Fig. 3 custom fit invention is novel for shoe sole structures as defined by the theoretically ideal stability plane, which specifies constant shoe sole thickness in frontal or transverse plane
  • the Fig. 3 cus- torn fit invention i ⁇ al ⁇ o novel for shoe sole structures with sides that exceed the theoretically ideal stability plane: that is, a shoe sole with thicknes ⁇ greater in the sides than underneath the foot. It would also be novel for shoe sole structure ⁇ with sides that are less than the theoretically ideal stability plane, within the parameters defined in the '714 application. And it would be novel for a shoe sole ⁇ tructure that provides stabil ⁇ ity like the barefoot, as described in Figs, l and 2 of the '714 application.
  • the appli ⁇ cant's invention i ⁇ the ⁇ tructure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole side ⁇ conforming to the ground by parallel ⁇ ing it, a ⁇ is conventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 appli- cation.
  • Fig. 3 the applicant's 07/239,667 appli- cation.
  • the entire shoe sole — including both the side ⁇ and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
  • the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por ⁇ tions is much le ⁇ s than the total thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot
  • the shoe sole thickness of the con ⁇ toured side portions are at least similar to the thick ⁇ ness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickness variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transver ⁇ e plane cross sections.
  • the applicant's invention main ⁇ tains the natural ⁇ tability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout it ⁇ normal range of ⁇ ideway ⁇ pronation and ⁇ upination motion occurring during all load-bearing pha ⁇ e ⁇ of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unsta ⁇ ble and inflexible conventional shoe sole ⁇ , including the partially contoured exi ⁇ ting art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf ⁇ ficiently far up the side ⁇ of the wearer' ⁇ foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the amount of any ⁇ hoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo- retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured side ⁇ that i ⁇ provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such a ⁇ normal or a ⁇ exce ⁇ ive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
  • the shoe sole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out ea ⁇ ily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiment ⁇ include the ⁇ tructural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer' ⁇ foot ⁇ ole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiment ⁇ are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contra ⁇ t, the exce ⁇ sive soft- ne ⁇ of many of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • the applicant has previou ⁇ ly ⁇ hown heel lift with con ⁇ tant frontal or tran ⁇ verse plane thickness, since it is oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknes ⁇ variation ⁇ in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the ⁇ hoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located per ⁇ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
  • the intentional under ⁇ izing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since the shoe last needs only to be approximate to provide a virtual custom fit, due to the flexible sides.
  • the under ⁇ sized flexible shoe sole sides allow the applicant's Fig. 10 shoe sole invention based on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole side ⁇ can be built on ⁇ tandard ⁇ hoe la ⁇ t ⁇ , even though conceptually tho ⁇ e sides conform to the specific shape of the individual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to so conform when on the wearer' ⁇ foot ⁇ ole.
  • Fig. 10 shows the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer;
  • the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the shoe la ⁇ t, which is assumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the ⁇ hape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51.
  • the dashed lines 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the shoe sole would be when the shoe is put on the foot of the wearer.
  • the Fig. 10 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured ⁇ hoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus makes much more practical the applicant's earlier underlying naturally contoured designs shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
  • the shoe sole structure ⁇ shown in Fig. 4 and 5, then, are what the Fig.
  • shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's load-bearing foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in this and prior applications ⁇ how one line to emphasize the conceptual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, some divergence of the sur ⁇ face, especially under load and during locomotion would be unavoidable) .
  • a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but ⁇ lightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the ⁇ hoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as i ⁇ conventional.
  • the clo ⁇ er the ⁇ ide ⁇ are to the ⁇ hape of the wearer's foot sole, the better a ⁇ a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 10 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's ⁇ hape i ⁇ both possible and more effective than conventional flat shoe sole sides.
  • the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just as the foot sole deforms to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot sole and the shoe sole may ⁇ tart in different loca ⁇ tion ⁇ - the shoe sole sides can even be conventionally flat on the ground - the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright.
  • the applicant's shoe sole invention includes any shoe sole - whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a ⁇ hape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole - that deforms to conform to a ⁇ hape at least similar to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
  • the position of the shoe sole side ⁇ before the wearer put ⁇ on the shoe is less important, since the sides will easily conform to the shape of the wearer's foot when the shoe is put on that foot.
  • shoe sole sides that conform to a shape more than slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole would function in accordance with the applicant's general invention, since the flexible sides could bend out easily a considerable relative distance and still conform to the wearer's foot ⁇ ole when on the wearer's foot.
  • Fig. 11 i ⁇ new with thi ⁇ application and i ⁇ a combination of the ⁇ hoe sole ⁇ tructure concept ⁇ of Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; it combine ⁇ the cu ⁇ tom fit de ⁇ ign with the contoured ⁇ ide ⁇ having material den ⁇ ity variations that produce an effect similar to variations in shoe sole thickne ⁇ s shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 7; only the midsole is shown.
  • the den ⁇ ity variation pattern ⁇ hown in Fig. 2 can be combined with the type shown in Fig. 11.
  • the density pattern can be constant in all cros ⁇ ⁇ ection ⁇ taken along the long the long axi ⁇ of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole or the pattern can vary.
  • the applicant's Fig. 11 shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inver ⁇ ion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a ⁇ imilar dem ⁇ onstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable.
  • the sides of the applicant's ⁇ hoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stabil ⁇ ity of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the applicant's invention main ⁇ tains the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unsta ⁇ ble and inflexible conventional shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ , including the partially contoured exi ⁇ ting art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe ⁇ ole invention extend ⁇ uf- ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theoret ⁇ ically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole ⁇ tability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said ⁇ tability; the amount of said coplanar contoured side ⁇ that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the u ⁇ e for which the ⁇ hoe i ⁇ intended and also typical of the kind of wearer - such as normal or as excessive pronator - for which said shoe is intended.
  • the shoe sole ⁇ ide ⁇ are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoe ⁇ are put on the wearer' ⁇ feet and therefore the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ gently hold the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mas ⁇ -produced ⁇ hoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiment ⁇ include the ⁇ tructural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiment ⁇ are ⁇ ufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural ⁇ upport nece ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive ⁇ oft- ne ⁇ of many of the ⁇ hoe sole materials u ⁇ ed in ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • the applicant has previously shown heel lift with constant frontal or transverse plane thicknes ⁇ , ⁇ ince it i ⁇ oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknes ⁇ variation ⁇ in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the ⁇ ubtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degree ⁇ medially, although a different angle can be u ⁇ ed ba ⁇ e on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe ⁇ ole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
  • the intentional undersizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since the shoe last needs only to be approximate to provide a virtual custom fit, due to the flexible sides.
  • the under- sized flexible shoe sole side ⁇ allow the applicant' ⁇ Fig.
  • a flexible under ⁇ ized ver ⁇ ion of the fully contoured de ⁇ ign de ⁇ cribed in Fig. 11 can al ⁇ o be provided by a ⁇ imilar geometric approximation.
  • the undersized flexible shoe sole side ⁇ allow the applicant' ⁇ shoe sole inventions based on the theoreti ⁇ cally ideal ⁇ tability plane to be manufactured in rela ⁇ tively ⁇ tandard ⁇ ize ⁇ in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sides can be built on standard ⁇ hoe la ⁇ ts, even though conceptually tho ⁇ e sides conform closely to the specific shape of the indi ⁇ vidual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to conform when on the wearer's foot sole.
  • Fig. 11 shows the shoe sole ⁇ tructure when not on the foot of the wearer;
  • the da ⁇ hed line 29 indicates the position of the shoe last, which is assumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the ⁇ hape of the outer ⁇ urface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51.
  • the da ⁇ hed lines 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the ⁇ hoe sole would be when the ⁇ hoe i ⁇ put on the foot of the wearer.
  • the Fig. 11 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially it ⁇ sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus make ⁇ much more practical the applicant's earlier underlying naturally contoured design ⁇ shown in Fig. 1A-C and Fig. 6.
  • the shoe sole structure shown in Fig. 61, then, is what the Fig.
  • 11 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in thi ⁇ and prior applications show one line to emphasize the concep ⁇ tual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, ⁇ ome divergence of the ⁇ urface, e ⁇ pe ⁇ cially under load and during locomotion would be unavoid- able) .
  • the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the shoe sole structure described under Fig. 11 can also be used to form a slightly less optimal structure: a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer ⁇ urface of the foot sole of the wearer, in ⁇ tead of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer ⁇ urface of the foot sole of the wearer, in ⁇ tead of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • the closer the side ⁇ are to the ⁇ hape of the wearer' ⁇ foot sole the better as a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 11 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's shape is both possible and more effective than conventional flat shoe sole
  • the shape of the flexible shoe uppers which can even be made with very elastic materials such as lycra and spandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the ⁇ hoe sole, to conform to the shape of the foot.
  • the critical functional feature of a ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just a ⁇ the foot ⁇ ole deform ⁇ to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot ⁇ ole and the shoe sole may start in different loca ⁇ tions - the shoe ⁇ ole sides can even be conventionally flat on the ground - the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright.
  • the applicant's shoe sole invention ⁇ tated mo ⁇ t broadly, include ⁇ any ⁇ hoe sole - whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a shape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole - that deforms to conform to the theo- retically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
  • the shoe sole side ⁇ are ea ⁇ ily flexible, a ⁇ has already been ⁇ pecified a ⁇ desirable, the position of the shoe sole ⁇ ides before the wearer puts on the shoe is less important, since the side ⁇ will ea ⁇ ily conform to the ⁇ hape of the wearer' ⁇ foot when the ⁇ hoe i ⁇ put on that foot.
  • the applicant' ⁇ shoe sole inventions de ⁇ cribed in Fig ⁇ . 4, 10 and 11 all attempt to provide structural compensation for actual structural changes in the feet of wearers that have occurred from a lifetime of use of existing ⁇ hoe ⁇ , which have a major flaw that has been identified and described earlier by the applicant.
  • the biomechanical motion of even the wearer's bare feet have been degraded from what they would be if the wearer's feet had not been structurally changed. Consequently, the ultimate design goal of the applicant's inventions is to provide un-degraded barefoot motion.
  • the ultimate goal of the applicant' ⁇ invention is to provide shoe sole ⁇ tructure ⁇ that maintain the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of side ⁇ way ⁇ pronation and ⁇ upination motion occurring during all load-bearing pha ⁇ e ⁇ of locomotion of a wearer who has never been shod in conventional shoe ⁇ , including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible con ⁇ ventional shoe soles.
  • Figs. 12-23 are Figs. 1-7 and 11-15, respec- tively, from the '714 application.
  • Fig. 12 show ⁇ in a real illu ⁇ tration a foot 27 in po ⁇ ition for a new biomechanical te ⁇ t that i ⁇ the ba ⁇ is for the discovery that ankle sprains are in fact unnatural for the bare foot.
  • the test simulates a lateral ankle sprain, where the foot 27 - on the ground
  • the Stationary Sprain Simulation Test clearly identifies what can be no les ⁇ than a fundamental flaw in exi ⁇ ting ⁇ hoe de ⁇ ign. It demonstrates conclusively that nature's biomechanical system, the bare foot, is far superior in stability to man's artificial ⁇ hoe de ⁇ ign. Unfortunately, it al ⁇ o demonstrates that the shoe' ⁇ severe in ⁇ tability overpower ⁇ the natural ⁇ tability of the human foot and synthetically creates a combined bio- mechanical ⁇ y ⁇ tem that is artificially unstable. The shoe is the weak link.
  • the ⁇ lipping of the foot within the shoe is caused by the natural tendency of the foot to slide down the typically flat surface of the tilted shoe sole; the more the tilt, the stronger the tendency.
  • the heel is shown in Fig. 13 because of its primary importance in sprains due to its direct physical connection to the ankle liga ⁇ ments that are torn in an ankle ⁇ prain and al ⁇ o because of the heel's predominant role within the foot in bearing body weight.
  • Fig. 14A illustrate ⁇ that the underlying prob ⁇ lem with existing shoe design ⁇ i ⁇ fairly ea ⁇ y to under ⁇ stand by looking closely at the principal forces acting on the physical structure of the shoe sole.
  • the weight of the body held in the shoe upper 21 shifts automatically to the outside edge of the shoe sole 22.
  • the tilted shoe sole 22 provides ab ⁇ o- lutely no supporting physical structure directly under- neath the shifted body weight where it is critically needed to support that weight.
  • the force couple cre ⁇ ates a force moment, commonly called torque, that forces the shoe 20 to rotate to the outside around the sharp corner edge 23 of the bottom ⁇ ole 22, which serves as a stationary pivoting point 23 or center of rotation.
  • torque a force moment
  • the oppo ⁇ ing two forces produce torque, causing the shoe 20 to tilt even more.
  • the torque forcing the rotation becomes even more powerful, so the tilting proce ⁇ s becomes a self-reenforcing cycle. The more the shoe tilts, the more destabilizing torque is produced to fur ⁇ ther increase the tilt.
  • the problem may be easier to understand by looking at the diagram of the force components of body weight shown in Fig. 14A.
  • Fig. 14B show that the full force of body weight 133 is split at 45 degrees of tilt into two equal components: ⁇ upported 135 and unsupported 136, each equal to .707 of full body weight 133.
  • the two vertical compo ⁇ nent ⁇ 137 and 138 of body weight 133 are both equal to .50 of full body weight.
  • the ground reaction force 134 is equal to the vertical component 137 of the supported component 135.
  • Fig. 15 show a summary of the force components at shoe sole tilts of 0, 45 and 90 degrees.
  • the ⁇ ole 22 is providing no structural support and there is no sup ⁇ ported force component 135 of the full body weight 133.
  • the ground reaction force at the pivoting point 23 is zero, since it would move to the upper edge 24 of the shoe sole.
  • Fig. 16 illustrates that the extremely rigid heel counter 141 typical of existing athletic shoes, together with the motion control device 142 that are often used to strongly reinforce those heel counters (and sometimes also the sides of the mid- and forefoot) , are ironically counterproductive. Though they are intended to increase stability, in fact they decrease it. Fig.
  • the motion control support 142 increase ⁇ by almost twice the effective lever arm 132 (compared to 23a) between the force couple of body weight and the ground reaction force at the pivot point 23. It doubles the de ⁇ tabilizing torque and al ⁇ o increases the effective angle of tilt so that the destabilizing force component 136 becomes greater compared to the supported component 135, also increasing the destabilizing torque. To the extent the foot shifts further to the outside, the prob ⁇ lem becomes worse.
  • Fig. 17 shows that the same kind of torsional problem, though to a much more moderate extent, can be produced in the applicant's naturally contoured design of the applicant's earlier filed applications.
  • the outer surface 27 of the foot is in contact with the upper ⁇ urface 30 of the sole 28.
  • it might seem desirable to extend the inner surface 30 of the shoe sole 28 up around the sides of the foot 27 to further support it (especially in creating anthropomorphic designs) Fig.
  • Fig. 18 illu ⁇ trate ⁇ an approach to minimize structurally the destabilizing lever arm 32 and therefore the potential torque problem.
  • the finishing edge of the shoe sole 28 should be tapered gradually inward from both the top surface 30 and the bottom surface 31, in order to provide matching rounded or semi-rounded edges. In that way, the upper surface 30 does not provide an unsupported portion that create ⁇ a de ⁇ tabilizing torque and the bottom ⁇ urface 31 doe ⁇ not provide an unnatural pivoting edge.
  • the gap 144 between ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole 28 and foot ⁇ ole 29 at the edge of the shoe sole can be "caulked" with exceptionally soft sole mate- rial as indicated in Fig.
  • Fig. 19 illu ⁇ trate ⁇ a fully contoured de ⁇ ign, but abbreviated along the sides to only essential struc ⁇ tural ⁇ tability and propulsion shoe sole elements as shown in Fig. 21 of United States Patent Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988) combined with the freely articulating structural elements underneath the foot as shown in Fig. 28 of the same patent application.
  • the unifying concept is that, on both the sides and underneath the main load-bearing portions of the shoe sole, only the important structural (i.e.
  • the foot sole should be composed of the same main structural elements as the foot and they should articu ⁇ late with each other just as do the main joint ⁇ of the foot.
  • Fig. 19E Show ⁇ the horizontal plane bottom view of the right foot corre ⁇ ponding to the fully contoured design previously described, but abbreviated along the sides to only essential structural support and propulsion elements.
  • Shoe sole material density can be increased in the unabbreviated e ⁇ sential elements to compensate for increased pre ⁇ ure loading there.
  • the e ⁇ ential ⁇ truc ⁇ tural support elements are the base and lateral tuberos ⁇ ity of the calcaneus 95, the heads of the metatarsals 96, and the ba ⁇ e of the fifth metatar ⁇ al 97 (and the adjoin ⁇ ing cuboid in some individuals) . They must be supported both underneath and to the outside edge of the foot for stability.
  • the essential propulsion element is the head of the first distal phalange 98.
  • Fig. 19 shows that the naturally contoured stability ⁇ ide ⁇ need not be u ⁇ ed except in the identified essential areas. Weight savings and flexibility improvements can be made by omitting the non-es ⁇ ential stability side ⁇ .
  • the design of the portion of the shoe sole directly underneath the foot shown in Fig. 19 allows for unobstructed natural inversion/eversion motion of the calcaneus by providing maximum shoe sole flexibility particularly between the base of the calcaneus 125 (heel) and the metatarsal heads 126 (forefoot) along an axis 120.
  • An unnatural torsion occurs about that axis if flexibility is in ⁇ ufficient so that a conventional shoe sole interferes with the inversion/eversion motion by restraining it.
  • the object of the design is to allow the relatively more mobile (in inver ⁇ ion and ever ⁇ ion) calca ⁇ neus to articulate freely and independently from the relatively more fixed forefoot instead of the fixed or fused structure or lack of stable structure between the two in conventional designs.
  • freely articu ⁇ lating joints are created in the shoe sole that parallel those of the foot.
  • the design is to remove nearly all of the shoe sole material between the heel and the forefoot, except under one of the previously described essential structural support elements, the base of the fifth meta ⁇ tarsal 97.
  • An optional support for the main longitudinal arch 121 may also be retained for runners with sub ⁇ tan- tial foot pronation, although would not be nece ⁇ sary for many runners.
  • the forefoot can be subdivided (not shown) into its component essential structural support and propulsion elements, the individual heads of the metatarsal and the heads of the di ⁇ tal phalange ⁇ , so that each major articu ⁇ lating joint set of the foot is paralleled by a freely articulating shoe sole support propulsion element, an anthropomorphic design; various aggregations of the sub ⁇ division are also possible.
  • the design in Fig. 19 features an enlarged structural support at the base of the fifth metatar ⁇ al in order to include the cuboid, which can al ⁇ o come into contact with the ground under arch compression in some individuals.
  • the design can provide general side support in the heel area, as in Fig. 19E or alterna ⁇ tively can carefully orient the stability sides in the heel area to the exact position ⁇ of the lateral calcaneal tubero ⁇ ity 108 and the main ba ⁇ e of the calcaneu ⁇ 109, as in Fig. 19E' (showing heel area only of the right foot) .
  • Figs. 19A-D show frontal plane cross sections of the left shoe and Fig.
  • FIG. 19E shows a bottom view of the right foot, with flexibility axes 120, 122, 111, 112 and 113 indi ⁇ cated.
  • Fig. 19F show ⁇ a sagittal plane cross section showing the structural elements joined by very thin and relatively soft upper midsole layer.
  • Figs. 19G and 19H show similar cros ⁇ ⁇ ection ⁇ with ⁇ lightly different designs featuring durable fabric only (slip-la ⁇ ted ⁇ hoe) , or a ⁇ tructurally sound arch design, respectively.
  • Fig. 191 shows a side medial view of the shoe sole.
  • 19J shows a ⁇ imple interim or low cost construction for the articulating shoe sole support ele ⁇ ment 95 for the heel (showing the heel area only of the right foot) ; while it is most critical and effective for the heel support element 95, it can also be used with the other element ⁇ , ⁇ uch as the base of the fifth metatarsal 97 and the long arch 121.
  • the heel sole element 95 shown can be a single flexible layer or a lamination of layers. When cut from a flat sheet or molded in the general pat ⁇ tern shown, the outer edges can be easily bent to follow the contours of the foot, particularly the sides.
  • the shape ⁇ hown allow ⁇ a flat or ⁇ lightly contoured heel element 95 to be attached to a highly contoured ⁇ hoe upper or very thin upper sole layer like that shown in Fig. 19F.
  • a very simple construction technique can yield a highly sophi ⁇ ticated ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole de ⁇ ign.
  • the ⁇ ize of the center section 119 can be small to conform to a fully or nearly fully contoured design or larger to con ⁇ form to a contoured sides design, where there is a large flattened sole area under the heel.
  • the flexibility is provided by the removed diagonal sections, the exact proportion of size and shape can vary.
  • Fig. 20 illustrates an expanded explanation of the correct approach for measuring shoe sole thicknes ⁇ according to the naturally contoured de ⁇ ign, as described previously in Figs. 23 and 24 of United States Patent Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988).
  • the tangent described in those figures would be parallel to the ground when the shoe sole i ⁇ tilted out sideways, so that measuring shoe sole thicknes ⁇ along the perpendicu ⁇ lar will provide the least distance between the point on the upper shoe sole surface close ⁇ t to the ground and the closest point to it on the lower surface of the shoe sole (assuming no load deformation) .
  • Fig. 21 shows a non-optimal but interim or low cost approach to shoe sole construction, whereby the mid ⁇ sole and heel lift 127 are produced conventionally, or nearly so (at least leaving the midsole bottom surface flat, though the sides can be contoured) , while the bot ⁇ tom or outer sole 128 includes most or all of the special contour ⁇ of the new de ⁇ ign.
  • the bot ⁇ tom or outer sole 128 includes most or all of the special contour ⁇ of the new de ⁇ ign.
  • com ⁇ pletely or mostly limit the ⁇ pecial contours to the bot ⁇ tom sole, which would be molded specially, it would also ease a ⁇ embly, ⁇ ince two flat surfaces of the bottom of the midsole and the top of the bottom ⁇ ole could be mated together with le ⁇ difficulty than two contoured sur ⁇ faces, as would be the ca ⁇ e otherwi ⁇ e.
  • Fig. 21A shows in a quadrant side design the concept applied to conventional street shoe heels, which are usually separated from the forefoot by a hollow instep area under the main longitudinal arch.
  • Fig. 21C shows in frontal plane cros ⁇ section the concept applied to the quadrant sided or single plane design and indicating in Fig.
  • Fig. 2IE in the shaded area 129 of the bot ⁇ tom sole that portion which should be honeycombed (axis on the horizontal plane) to reduce the density of the relatively hard outer sole to that of the mid ⁇ ole raate- rial to provide for relatively uniform shoe density.
  • Fig. 2IE show ⁇ in bottom view the outline of a bottom ⁇ ole 128 made from flat material which can be conformed topologically to a contoured midsole of either the one or two plane de ⁇ ign ⁇ by limiting the side areas to be mated to the essential support areas discus ⁇ ed in Fig.
  • the contoured mid ⁇ ⁇ ole and flat bottom sole surfaces can be made to join sati ⁇ factorily by coinciding clo ⁇ ely, which would be topologically impo ⁇ sible if all of the side areas were retained on the bottom sole.
  • Figs. 22A-22C frontal plane cross sections, show an enhancement to the previously described embodi- ment ⁇ of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole side stability quadrant invention of the '349 Patent.
  • one major purpose of that design is to allow the shoe sole to pivot easily from ⁇ ide to ⁇ ide with the foot 90, thereby following the foot' ⁇ natural inversion and eversion motion; in conven- tional design ⁇ shown in Fig. 22a, such foot motion is forced to occur within the shoe upper 21, which resists the motion.
  • the enhancement is to position exactly and stabilize the foot, e ⁇ pecially the heel, relative to the preferred embodiment of the ⁇ hoe sole; doing so facili- tates the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole' ⁇ re ⁇ pon ⁇ ivene ⁇ in following the foot's natural motion.
  • Correct positioning is essential to the invention, especially when the very narrow or "hard tis ⁇ ue" definition of heel width i ⁇ u ⁇ ed. Incor ⁇ rect or shifting relative position will reduce the inher- ent efficiency and stability of the side quadrant design, by reducing the effective thickness of the quadrant side 26 to less than that of the shoe sole 28b. A ⁇ shown in Fig.
  • the form of the enhancement is inner shoe sole stability side ⁇ 131 that follow the natural contour of the sides 91 of the heel of the foot 90, thereby cupping the heel of the foot.
  • the inner stability side ⁇ 131 can be located directly on the top surface of the shoe sole and heel contour, or directly under the shoe insole (or integral to it) , or somewhere in between.
  • the inner stability sides are similar in structure to heel cups integrated in insoles currently in common use, but differ because of its material density, which can be relatively firm like the typical mid-sole, not soft like the insole.
  • insole ⁇ ⁇ hould be con ⁇ idered structurally and functionally as part of the shoe sole, as should any shoe material between foot and ground, like the bottom of the shoe upper in a slip- lasted shoe or the board in a board-lasted shoe.
  • the inner stability side enhancement is parti- cularly useful in converting exi ⁇ ting conventional ⁇ hoe sole design embodiments 22, as constructed within prior art, to an effective embodiment of the side stability quadrant 26 invention. This feature is important in constructing prototypes and initial production of the invention, as well as an ongoing method of low cost pro ⁇ duction, since such production would be very close to existing art.
  • the inner stability sides enhancement is most essential in cupping the sides and back of the heel of the foot and therefore is essential on the upper edge of the heel of the shoe ⁇ ole 27, but may al ⁇ o be extended around all or any portion of the remaining shoe sole upper edge.
  • Figs. 23A-23C frontal plane cross section ⁇ , illustrate the same inner shoe sole stability sides enhancement as it applies to the previously described embodiments of the naturally contoured side ⁇ '667 appli ⁇ cation de ⁇ ign.
  • the enhancement po ⁇ itions and stabilizes the foot relative to the shoe sole, and maintains the constant shoe sole thickness (s) of the naturally con- toured ⁇ ide ⁇ 28a design, as shown in Figs. 23B and 23C;
  • Fig. 23A shows a conventional design.
  • the inner shoe sole stability side ⁇ 131 conform to the natural contour of the foot sides 29, which determine the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 for the shoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s (s) .
  • Figs. 24-34 are Figs. 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 14- 15, re ⁇ pectively, from the '478 application.
  • Fig ⁇ . 24, 25, and 26 show frontal plane cross sectional views of a ⁇ hoe sole according to the appli ⁇ cant's prior inventions based on the theoretically ideal stability plane, taken at about the ankle joint to show the heel ⁇ ection of the shoe.
  • Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 27-32 show the same view of the applicant's enhancement of that invention.
  • the reference numerals are like those u ⁇ ed in the prior pending application ⁇ of the applicant mentioned above and which are incorporated by reference for the sake of completeness of disclosure, if nece ⁇ ary.
  • Fig. 24 hows, in a rear cross sectional view, the application of the prior invention showing the inner surface of the shoe sole conforming to the natural con ⁇ tour of the foot and the thickness of the shoe sole remaining constant in the frontal plane, so that the outer surface coincides with the theoretically ideal sta- bility plane.
  • Fig. 25 shows a fully contoured shoe sole design of the applicant' ⁇ prior invention that follow ⁇ the natural contour of all of the foot, the bottom a ⁇ well as the side ⁇ , while retaining a con ⁇ tant ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s in the frontal plane.
  • ⁇ hoe sole assumes that the resulting slightly rounded bottom when unloaded will deform under load and flatten just as the human foot bot ⁇ tom i ⁇ ⁇ lightly rounded unloaded but flatten ⁇ under load; therefore, ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole material mu ⁇ t be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot.
  • the design applies particularly to the heel, but to the rest of the shoe sole as well.
  • the fully contoured design allows the foot to function as naturally as possible. Under load, Fig. 2 would deform by flatten ⁇ ing to look es ⁇ entially like Fig. 24. Seen in this light, the naturally contoured side design in Fig.
  • Figs. 24 and 25 both show in frontal plane cross section ⁇ the e ⁇ sential concept underlying this invention, the theoretically ideal stability plane, which is also theoretically ideal for efficient natural motion of all kinds, including running, jogging or walking.
  • Fig. 25 show ⁇ the mo ⁇ t general ca ⁇ e of the invention, the fully contoured de ⁇ ign, which conform ⁇ to the natural shape of the unloaded foot.
  • the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 is determined, first, by the desired shoe sole thickness(es) in a fron ⁇ tal plane cross section, and, second, by the natural ⁇ hape of the individual' ⁇ foot ⁇ urface 29.
  • the ⁇ pecial ca ⁇ e ⁇ hown in Fig.
  • the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane for any particular individual is deter ⁇ mined, first, by the given frontal plane cross section shoe sole thickne ⁇ (e ⁇ ) ; ⁇ econd, by the natural ⁇ hape of the individual' ⁇ foot; and, third, by the frontal plane cro ⁇ s section width of the individual's load-bearing footprint 30b, which is defined as the upper surface of the shoe sole that is in physical contact with and sup ⁇ port ⁇ the human foot sole.
  • the theoretically ideal stability plane for the ⁇ pecial ca ⁇ e i ⁇ composed conceptually of two parts. Shown in Fig.
  • the first part is a line segment 31b of equal length and parallel to line 30b at a constant dis ⁇ tance(s) equal to shoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ .
  • Thi ⁇ corresponds to a conventional shoe sole directly underneath the human foot, and also corresponds to the flattened portion of the bottom of the load-bearing foot sole 28b.
  • the second part i ⁇ the naturally contoured ⁇ tability ⁇ ide outer edge 31a located at each ⁇ ide of the fir ⁇ t part, line segment 31b.
  • Each point on the contoured side outer edge 31a is located at a distance which is exactly shoe sole thick ⁇ ness(es) from the closest point on the contoured side inner edge 30a.
  • the theoretically ideal stability plane is the es ⁇ ence of thi ⁇ invention because it is used to determine a geometrically precise bottom contour of the shoe sole based on a top contour that conforms to the contour of the foot.
  • This invention ⁇ pecifically claim ⁇ the exactly determined geometric relation ⁇ hip ju ⁇ t de ⁇ cribed.
  • Fig. 26 illu ⁇ trates in frontal plane cross sec ⁇ tion another variation of the applicant's prior invention that uses stabilizing quadrant ⁇ 26 at the outer edge of a conventional ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole 28b illustrated generally at the reference numeral 28.
  • the stabilizing quadrant ⁇ would be abbreviated in actual embodiments.
  • Fig. 28 show ⁇ that the thickne ⁇ can al ⁇ o increa ⁇ e and then decrea ⁇ e; other thickne ⁇ s variation ⁇ equence ⁇ are al ⁇ o po ⁇ ible.
  • the variation in side con ⁇ tour thicknes ⁇ in the new invention can be either ⁇ ymme- trical on both ⁇ ide ⁇ or a ⁇ ymmetrical, particularly with the medial ⁇ ide providing more stability than the lateral side, although many other a ⁇ ymmetrical variations are possible, and the pattern of the right foot can vary from that of the left foot.
  • the applicant' ⁇ prior invention did not prefer multi-densi ⁇ ties in the midsole, since only a uniform density pro ⁇ vides a neutral ⁇ hoe sole design that does not interfere with natural foot and ankle biomechanics in the way that multi-density shoe soles do, which is by providing dif ⁇ ferent amounts of support to different parts of the foot; it did not, of course, preclude such multi-density mid- soles.
  • the density of the sole mater- iai designated by the legend (dl) is firmer than (d) while (d2) is the firmest of the three representative densitie ⁇ ⁇ hown.
  • a dual den ⁇ ity ⁇ ole is shown, with (d) having the less firm density.
  • Fig. 33A shows an embodiment like Figs. 4 and 28, but with naturally contoured sides less than the theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Fig. 33B shows an embodiment like the fully contoured design in Figs. 5 and 6, but with a ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickness decreasing with increa ⁇ - ing distance from the center portion of the sole.
  • Fig. 33C show ⁇ an embodiment like the quadrant-sided design of Fig. 31, but with the quadrant side ⁇ increa ⁇ ingly reduced from the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane.
  • the lesser-sided design of Fig. 33 would also apply to the Figs. 29, 30, 6 and 32 density variation approach and to the Fig. 8 approach using tread design to approximate density variation.
  • Fig. 34 A-C show, in cros ⁇ sections similar to those in pending U.S. Patent '349, that with the quad ⁇ rant-sided design of Figs. 26, 31, 32 and 33C that it is possible to have shoe sole sides that are both greater and lesser than the theoretically ideal stability plane in the same shoe.
  • the radiu ⁇ of an intermediate shoe sole thicknes ⁇ , taken at (S 2 ) at the ba ⁇ e of the fifth metatarsal in Fig. 34B, is maintained con ⁇ tant throughout the quadrant ⁇ ide ⁇ of the shoe sole, including both the heel, Fig. 34C, and the forefoot, Fig. 34A, so that the side thicknes ⁇ is less than the theoretically ideal sta- bility plane at the heel and more at the forefoot.
  • thi ⁇ is not a preferred approach.
  • the same approach can be applied to the naturally contoured side ⁇ or fully contoured de ⁇ ign ⁇ de ⁇ cribed in Figs. 24, 25, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 27-30, but it is also not preferred.
  • Figs. 34 D-F in cro ⁇ ⁇ ection ⁇ ⁇ imilar to tho ⁇ e in pending U.S. application No. 07/239,667, it i ⁇ po ⁇ sible to have shoe sole side ⁇ that are both greater and lesser than the theoretically ideal stability plane in the same shoe, like Figs.
  • Figs. 35-44 are Figs. 1-10 from the '302 appli ⁇ cation.
  • Fig. 35 shows a perspective view of a shoe, such as a typical athletic shoe specifically for running, according to the prior art, wherein the running shoe 20 include ⁇ an upper portion 21 and a ⁇ ole 22.
  • the problem is that the remaining shoe upper 21 ( ⁇ hown in the thickened and darkened line) , while providing no lever arm exten ⁇ ion, since it is flexible in ⁇ tead of rigid, nonethele ⁇ create ⁇ unnatural de ⁇ tabilizing torque on the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole.
  • the torque is due to the tension force 155a along the top surface of the shoe sole 22 cau ⁇ ed by a compre ⁇ ion force 150 (a compo ⁇ ite of the force of gravity on the body and a ⁇ ideway ⁇ motion force) to the ⁇ ide by the foot 27, due ⁇ imply to the ⁇ hoe being tilted to the ⁇ ide, for example.
  • the compres ⁇ ion force 150 also cre ⁇ ates a tension force 155b, which i ⁇ the mirror image of tension force 155a Fig. 37 shows, in a close-up cros ⁇ ⁇ ection of a naturally contoured design shoe sole 28, described in pending U.S. application No.
  • Fig. 38 shows (in a rear view) that, in con ⁇ trast, the barefoot is naturally ⁇ table because, when deformed by body weight and tilted to its natural lateral limit of about 20 degrees, it does not create any desta ⁇ bilizing torque due to tension force. Even though ten ⁇ sion paralleling that on the shoe upper is created on the outer surface 29, both bottom and sides, of the bare foot by the compression force of weight-bearing, no destabil ⁇ izing torque is created because the lower ⁇ urface under tension (i.e. the foot's bottom sole, shown in the dark ⁇ ened line) is re ⁇ ting directly in contact with the ground. Con ⁇ equently, there is no unnatural lever arm artificially created against which to pull.
  • the weight of the body firmly anchors the outer surface of the foot underneath the foot so that even considerable pressure against the outer ⁇ urface 29 of the side of the foot results in no destabilizing motion.
  • the supporting ⁇ tructure ⁇ of the foot like the calcaneu ⁇ , ⁇ lide against the side of the strong but flex ⁇ ible outer surface of the foot and create very sub ⁇ tan- tial pre ⁇ sure on that outer surface at the ⁇ ides of the foot. But that pres ⁇ ure is precisely resisted and bal- anced by tension along the outer surface of the foot, resulting in a stable equilibrium.
  • Fig. 39 shows, in cros ⁇ section of the upright heel deformed by body weight, the principle of the ten- ⁇ ion stabilized sides of the barefoot applied to the naturally contoured shoe sole design; the same principle can be applied to conventional shoe ⁇ , but is not shown.
  • the key change from the existing art of shoes is that the sides of the shoe upper 21 (shown as darkened lines) must wrap around the outside edges 32 of the shoe sole 28, instead of attaching underneath the foot to the upper surface 30 of the shoe sole, as done conventionally.
  • the shoe upper sides can overlap and be attached to either the inner (shown on the left) or outer surface (shown on the right) of the bottom sole, since those sides are not unusually load-bearing, as shown; or the bottom sole, optimally thin and tapering as shown, can extend upward around the outside edges 32 of the shoe sole to overlap and attach to the ⁇ hoe upper sides ( ⁇ hown Fig. 39B) ; their optimal po ⁇ ition coincide ⁇ with the Theoretically Ideal Stability Plane, ⁇ o that the tension force on the shoe ⁇ ide ⁇ i ⁇ tran ⁇ mitted directly all the way down to the bottom shoe, which anchors it on the ground with virtually no intervening artificial lever arm.
  • the attachment of the shoe upper side ⁇ ⁇ hould be at or near the lower or bottom ⁇ urface of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole.
  • the de ⁇ ign shown in Fig. 39 is ba ⁇ ed on a fun- damentally different conception: that the ⁇ hoe upper i ⁇ integrated into the shoe sole, instead of attached on top of it, and the shoe sole is treated as a natural exten ⁇ sion of the foot sole, not attached to it separately.
  • the fabric (or other flexible material, like leather) of the shoe uppers would preferably be non- stretch or relatively so, ⁇ o a ⁇ not to be deformed exces ⁇ sively by the tension place upon its ⁇ ide ⁇ when com ⁇ pres ⁇ ed a ⁇ the foot and ⁇ hoe tilt.
  • the fabric can be reinforced in area ⁇ of particularly high ten ⁇ ion, like the e ⁇ ential ⁇ tructural ⁇ upport and propul ⁇ ion element ⁇ defined in the applicant's earlier applications (the ba ⁇ e and lateral tubero ⁇ ity of the calcaneus, the base of the fifth metatar ⁇ al, the head ⁇ of the metatarsals, and the fir ⁇ t distal phalange; the reinforcement can take many forms, such as like that of corners of the jib sail of a racing sailboat or more simple straps. As closely a ⁇ possible, it should have the same performance character- istic ⁇ a ⁇ the heavily callou ⁇ ed ⁇ kin of the sole of an habitually bare foot.
  • the relative density of the shoe sole is preferred as indicated in Fig. 9 of pending U.S. application No. 07/400,714, filed on August 30, 1989, with the ⁇ ofte ⁇ t density nearest the foot sole, so that the conforming sides of the shoe sole do not provide a rigid destabilizing lever arm.
  • FIG. 40 which shows a close-up cross section of a naturally contoured design shoe ⁇ ole 28 (undeformed by body weight) when tilted to the edge.
  • the same destabilizing force against the side of the shoe shown in Fig. 36 is now stably resisted by offsetting tension in the surface of the shoe upper 21 extended down the side of the shoe sole so that it i ⁇ anchored by the weight of the body when the shoe and foot are tilted.
  • the shoe uppers may be joined or bonded only to the bottom sole, not the midsole, so that pres ⁇ sure shown on the side of the shoe upper produces side tension only and not the de ⁇ tabilizing torque from pull- ing ⁇ imilar to that de ⁇ cribed in Fig.
  • the bottom ⁇ ole i ⁇ preferably thin, at least on the stability sides, so that its attachment overlap with the shoe upper sides coincide as clo ⁇ e as possible to the Theoretically Ideal Stability Plane, so that force is transmitted on the outer shoe sole surface to the ground.
  • the Fig. 39 design is for a shoe construction, including: a shoe upper that is composed of material that is flexible and relatively inelastic at least where the shoe upper contacts the areas of the structural bone elements of the human foot, and a shoe sole that has relatively flexible side ⁇ ; and at least a portion of the side ⁇ of the shoe upper being attached directly to the bottom ⁇ ole, while enveloping on the outside the other sole portions of said shoe sole.
  • This construction can either be applied to convention shoe sole structure ⁇ or to the applicant' ⁇ prior ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole invention ⁇ , ⁇ uch a ⁇ the naturally contoured shoe sole conforming to the theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Figs. 42A-42D show the natural cushioning of the human barefoot, in cros ⁇ sections at the heel.
  • Fig. 42A show ⁇ the bare heel upright and unloaded, with little pre ⁇ ure on the ⁇ ubcalcaneal fat pad 158, which i ⁇ evenly di ⁇ tributed between the calcaneu ⁇ 159, which i ⁇ the heel bone, and the bottom ⁇ ole 160 of the foot.
  • Fig. 42B ⁇ hows the bare heel upright but under the moderate pre ⁇ ure of full body weight.
  • the compre ⁇ ⁇ ion of the calcaneus against the subcalcaneal fat pad produces evenly balanced pressure within the subcalcaneal fat pad because it is contained and ⁇ urrounded by a rela ⁇ tively un ⁇ tretchable fibrou ⁇ capsule, the bottom sole of the foot. Underneath the foot, where the bottom sole is in direct contact with the ground, the pressure caused by the calcaneus on the compre ⁇ ed ⁇ ubcalcaneal fat pad i ⁇ transmitted directly to the ground. Simultaneously, sub- ⁇ tantial ten ⁇ ion is created on the side ⁇ of the bottom ⁇ ole of the foot becau ⁇ e of the surrounding relatively tough fibrous capsule. That combination of bottom pres- ⁇ ure and side tension is the foot's natural shock absorp ⁇ tion sy ⁇ tem for ⁇ upport structures like the calcaneus and the other bones of the foot that come in contact with the ground.
  • this sy ⁇ tem allows the relatively narrow base of the calcaneus to pivot from side to ⁇ ide freely in normal pronation/ supination motion, without any obstructing tor ⁇ ion on it, de ⁇ pite the very much greater width of compre ⁇ sed foot sole providing protection and cushioning; this is cru ⁇ cially important in maintaining natural alignment of joints above the ankle joint such as the knee, hip and back, particularly in the horizontal plane, so that the entire body is properly adjusted to absorb shock cor ⁇ rectly.
  • Fig ⁇ 43A-D show Figs. 9B-D of the '302 applica ⁇ tion, in addition to Fig. 9 of thi ⁇ application.
  • FIG. 44A and 44C are perspective view ⁇ of cro ⁇ sections of the human heel showing the matrix of elastic fibrous connec ⁇ tive tis ⁇ ue arranged into chamber ⁇ 164 holding clo ⁇ ely packed fat cell ⁇ ; the chambers are structured as whorls radiating out from the calcaneus. These fibrou ⁇ -ti ⁇ ue ⁇ trand ⁇ are firmly attached to the under ⁇ urface of the calcaneus and extend to the subcutaneous tissues.
  • the lower ⁇ urface 165 of the upper mid ⁇ ole 147 would corre- spond to the outer surface 167 of the calcaneus 159 and would be the origin of the U shaped whorl chambers 164 noted above.
  • Fig. 44B show ⁇ a close-up of the interior structure of the large chambers shown in Fig. 44A and 44C. It is clear from the fine interior structure and compre ⁇ sion characteristics of the mini-chambers 165 that those directly under the calcaneu ⁇ become very hard quite ea ⁇ ily, due to the high local pre ⁇ sure on them and the limited degree of their elasticity, so they are able to provide very firm support to the calcaneus or other bones of the foot sole; by being fairly inelastic, the compre ⁇ sion forces on those compartment ⁇ are dissipated to other areas of the network of fat pads under any given support structure of the foot, like the calcaneus.
  • a cushioning compartment 161 such as the compartment under the heel shown in Fig ⁇ . 9 & 43, i ⁇ ⁇ ubdivided into ⁇ maller chambers, like those shown in Fig. 44, then actual contact between the upper surface 165 and the lower surface 166 would no longer be required to provide firm support, so long as those compartments and the pre ⁇ - ⁇ ure-tran ⁇ mitting medium contained in them have material characteristics ⁇ imilar to tho ⁇ e of the foot, as described above; the use of gas may not be ⁇ atisfactory in this approach, since its compressibility may not allow adequate firmness.
  • the Fig. 44 design show ⁇ a ⁇ hoe con ⁇ truction including: a shoe sole with a compartments under the structural elements of the human foot, includ- ing at least the heel; the compartments containing a pressure-transmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel; the compartments having a whorled structure like that of the fat pads of the human foot sole;load-bearing pre ⁇ ure being tran ⁇ mitted progre ⁇ ively at lea ⁇ t in part to the relatively inela ⁇ tic ⁇ ides, top and bottom of the ⁇ hoe sole compartments, producing tension therein; the elas ⁇ ticity of the material of the compartment ⁇ and the pre ⁇ - ⁇ ure-tran ⁇ mitting medium are such that normal weight- bearing loads produce sufficient tension within the structure of the compartments to provide adequate struc ⁇ tural rigidity to allow firm natural support to the foot structural elements, like that provided the barefoot by its fat pads.
  • That shoe sole construction can have shoe sole compartments that are subdivided into micro chambers like those of
  • sock ⁇ could be produced to ⁇ erve the same function, with the area of the sock that corresponds to the foot bottom sole (and side ⁇ of the bottom ⁇ ole) made of a material coar ⁇ e enough to ⁇ timulate the produc ⁇ tion of callou ⁇ e ⁇ on the bottom sole of the foot, with different grades of coarseness available, from fine to coarse, corresponding to feet from ⁇ oft to naturally tough.
  • U ⁇ ing a tube ⁇ ock design with uniform coarsene ⁇ , rather than conventional ⁇ ock design as ⁇ umed above, would allow the user to rotate the sock on his foot to elimi ⁇ nate any "hot ⁇ pot" irritation points that might develop.
  • ⁇ ince the toe ⁇ are mo ⁇ t prone to bli ⁇ termg and the heel is most important in shock absorption, the toe area of the sock could be relatively less abrasive than the heel area.
  • Fig. 45 i ⁇ new in the continuation-in-part application, but i ⁇ similar to Fig. 4 from the appli ⁇ cant's copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478, filed October 3, 1989, and described above.
  • Fig. 45A illustrate ⁇ , in frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane cro ⁇ s section in the heel area, the applicant's new invention of shoe sole side thickness increasing beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane to increase stability somewhat beyond its natural level. The unavoidable trade-off resulting is that natural motion would be restricted somewhat and the weight of the shoe sole would increase somewhat.
  • the right ⁇ ide of Fig. 45A ⁇ how ⁇ roughly a 50 percent thickne ⁇ increa ⁇ e over the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 and the left ⁇ ide shows roughly a 100 percent increase.
  • Fig. 45B show ⁇ the same modification ⁇ to a forefoot ⁇ ection of the ⁇ hoe sole, where such extreme thickness variations are considered more practical and effective.
  • Fig. 45 show ⁇ a ⁇ ituation wherein the thickne ⁇ of the sole at each of the opposed sides is thicker at the portions of the sole 31a by a thickness which gradu ⁇ ally varies continuously from a thickness (s) through a thickness (s+sl) , to a thicknes ⁇ ( ⁇ +s2) .
  • one of the mo ⁇ t common of the abnormal effect ⁇ of the inherent existing flaw is a weakening of the long arch of the foot, increasing pronation.
  • These designs therefore modify the applicant's preceding design ⁇ to provide greater than natural ⁇ tability and ⁇ hould be particularly u ⁇ eful to individual ⁇ , generally with low arche ⁇ , prone to pronate exce ⁇ sively, and could be used only on the medial side.
  • individuals with high arches and a tendency to over supinate and lateral ankle sprains would also benefit, and the design could be used only on the lateral side.
  • a shoe for the general population that compen ⁇ ates for both weaknesses in the same shoe would incorporate the enhanced stability of the design compensation on both sides.
  • Fig. 45 (like Figs. 1 and 2 of the '478 application) allows the shoe sole to deform naturally closely paralleling the natural deformation of the barefoot under load; in addition, shoe sole material must be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot.
  • the new designs retain the es ⁇ ential novel a ⁇ pect of the earlier designs; namely, contouring the shape of the shoe sole to the ⁇ hape of the human foot.
  • the difference i ⁇ that the shoe sole thicknes ⁇ in the frontal plane is allowed to vary rather than remain uni ⁇ formly constant.
  • Fig. 45 and Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the '478 application) show, in frontal plane cros ⁇ ⁇ ection ⁇ at the heel, that the ⁇ hoe sole thickness can increase beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane 51, in order to provide greater than natural stability.
  • Such variations can be con ⁇ istent through all frontal plane cros ⁇ sections, so that there are proportionately equal increases to the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 from the front of the shoe sole to the back, or that the thickne ⁇ can vary, preferably continuously, from one frontal plane to the next.
  • the applicant's Fig. 4 and this new Fig. 45 invention are the structure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having it ⁇ ⁇ ide ⁇ bent up ⁇ o that their inner surface conforms to a shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole side ⁇ conforming to the ground by paralleling it, a ⁇ i ⁇ conventional) ; thi ⁇ con ⁇ cept i ⁇ like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application.
  • the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por- tions, including every layer or portion, is much les ⁇ than the total thickne ⁇ s of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, wherea ⁇ in the applicant' ⁇ '478 ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole invention the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ of the contoured side portions are at least similar to the thickne ⁇ of the ⁇ ole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickne ⁇ variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
  • New Fig. 45 of thi ⁇ continuation-in-part appli ⁇ cation explicitly define ⁇ tho ⁇ e thickness variations, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cros ⁇ sections, of the applicant's ⁇ hoe soles from 26 percent up to 50 percent, which di ⁇ tingui ⁇ he ⁇ over all known prior art.
  • Fig. 45 invention can be u ⁇ ed at any one, or combination including all, of the e ⁇ ential structural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Those elements are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the heads of the metatarsals, and the ba ⁇ e of the fifth metatar ⁇ al, and the head of the first distal phalange, respectively. Of the metatarsal heads, only the first and fifth metatarsal heads are proximate to the contoured shoe sole sides.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through ⁇ out its normal range of sideway ⁇ pronation and ⁇ upination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco ⁇ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand ⁇ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot i ⁇ tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con- tra ⁇ t to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the side ⁇ of the applicant' ⁇ shoe ⁇ ole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact thick- nes ⁇ of the shoe sole side ⁇ and their specific contour will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysi ⁇ to determine tho ⁇ e combination ⁇ that be ⁇ t provide the barefoot stability described above.
  • the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo- retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe ⁇ ole weight and bulk required to provide ⁇ aid ⁇ tability; the amount of ⁇ aid coplanar contoured sides that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe i ⁇ intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said ⁇ hoe i ⁇ intended.
  • the applicant' ⁇ preferred ⁇ hoe sole embodiments include the ⁇ tructural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe ⁇ ole embodiment ⁇ are ⁇ ufficiently firm to provide the wearer' ⁇ foot with the ⁇ tructural support neces ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and ⁇ upination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft ⁇ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • the applicant has previously shown heel lifts with constant frontal or transverse plane thickness, since it is ori ⁇ ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknes ⁇ variation ⁇ in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located per ⁇ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thicknes ⁇ in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, in ⁇ tead of the frontal plane.
  • any of the above de ⁇ cribed thick ⁇ ness variations from a theoretically ideal stability plane can be used together with any of the below described density or bottom sole design variations. All portions of the shoe sole are included in thickness and density measurement, including the sockliner or insole, the midsole (including heel lift or other thicknes ⁇ vari- ation measured in the sagittal plane) and bottom or outer sole.
  • the thickness and density varia ⁇ tions described above can be measured from the center of the essential structural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Those elements are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the head ⁇ of the metatar ⁇ als, and the base of the fifth metatarsal, and the head of the first di ⁇ tal phalange, respectively. Of the metatarsal heads, only the first and fifth metatarsal heads are used for such measurement, since only those two are located on lateral portions of the foot and thus proximate to contoured stability side ⁇ of the applicant' ⁇ ⁇ hoe sole.
  • Fig. 46 is similar to Fig. 5 in the applicant's copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478, but including the ⁇ hoe sole thicknes ⁇ variations as described in Fig. 45 above.
  • Fig. 46 shows, in frontal or trans- verse plane cross section in the heel area, a variation of the enhanced fully contoured design wherein the shoe sole begins to thicken beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 at the contoured sides portion, pref ⁇ erably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inver ⁇ ion and eversion, which is sideway ⁇ or lateral foot motion.
  • the right side of Fig. 46 show ⁇ roughly a 50 percent thick ⁇ ne ⁇ increa ⁇ e over the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane 51 and the left ⁇ ide shows roughly a 100 percent increase.
  • Fig. 47 i ⁇ ⁇ imilar to Fig. 6 of the parent '598 application, which i ⁇ Fig. 10 in the applicant's copend ⁇ ing '478 Application and show ⁇ , in frontal or tran ⁇ ver ⁇ e plane cross section in the heel area, that ⁇ imilar varia ⁇ tions in shoe midsole (other portions of the shoe sole area not shown) den ⁇ ity can provide ⁇ imilar but reduced effect ⁇ to the variation ⁇ in ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ de ⁇ cribed previously in Figs. 4 and 5.
  • the major advan- tage of this approach is that the structural theoreti ⁇ cally ideal ⁇ tability plane i ⁇ retained, so that natu ⁇ rally optimal stability and efficient motion are retained to the maximum extent possible.
  • the more extreme con- structive density variations of Fig. 47 are, a ⁇ mo ⁇ t typically mea ⁇ ured in durometer ⁇ on a Shore A ⁇ cale, to include from 26 percent to 50 percent and from 51 percent up to 200 percent.
  • the den ⁇ ity variations are located preferably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inversion and eversion, which is side ⁇ ways or lateral foot motion.
  • the applicant's ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through- out it ⁇ normal range of ⁇ ideway ⁇ pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phase ⁇ of loco ⁇ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is ⁇ tand- ing, walking, jogging and running, even when ⁇ aid foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contra ⁇ t to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the ⁇ ide ⁇ of the applicant's ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole invention extend ⁇ ufficiently far up the ⁇ ides of the wearer's foot ⁇ ole to maintain the natural ⁇ tability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact material density of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine those combinations that best provide the bare ⁇ foot ⁇ tability de ⁇ cribed above.
  • the amount of any ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide portion ⁇ coplanar with the theo- retically ideal ⁇ tability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of ⁇ aid coplanar contoured ⁇ ide ⁇ that i ⁇ provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inver ⁇ ion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe i ⁇ intended.
  • the applicant' ⁇ preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer' ⁇ foot ⁇ ole a ⁇ if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanic ⁇ created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant' ⁇ preferred ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole embodiment ⁇ are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contra ⁇ t, the exce ⁇ ive ⁇ oft- ness of many of the shoe ⁇ ole material ⁇ used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • the applicant has previou ⁇ ly shown heel lifts with con ⁇ tant frontal or tran ⁇ verse plane thickne ⁇ , since it is ori ⁇ ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other ⁇ hoe sole thickness variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which i ⁇ located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degree ⁇ medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group te ⁇ ting; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s in a vertical plane perpendicular to the cho ⁇ en ⁇ ubtalar joint axi ⁇ , in ⁇ tead of the frontal plane.
  • Fig. 48 i ⁇ ⁇ imilar to Fig. 7 of the parent '598 application, but with more the extreme thickne ⁇ s varia- tion similar to Fig. 45 above.
  • Fig. 48 is like Fig. 7, which is Fig. 14B of the applicant's '478 Application and ⁇ how ⁇ , in frontal or transverse plane cross section ⁇ in the heel area, embodiment ⁇ like those in Fig. 4 through 6 but wherein a portion of the shoe sole thicknes ⁇ i ⁇ decrea ⁇ ed to less than the theoretically ideal stability plane, the amount of the thicknes ⁇ variation a ⁇ defined for Fig.
  • the right side of Fig. 48 shows a thick ⁇ ness reduction of approximately 40 percent and the left side a reduction of approximately 50 percent.
  • Fig. 7 show ⁇ a embodiment like the fully contoured design in Fig. 5, but with a show sole thicknes ⁇ decrea ⁇ ing with increa ⁇ ing di ⁇ tance from the center portion of the ⁇ ole.
  • Fig. 49 i ⁇ ⁇ imilar to Fig. 8 of the parent '598 application which was Fig. 13 of the '478 Application and show ⁇ , in frontal or transverse plane cross section, a bottom ⁇ ole tread design that provide ⁇ about the ⁇ ame overall ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole den ⁇ ity variation a ⁇ that provided in Fig. 6 by midsole density variation.
  • the le ⁇ s supporting tread there is under any particular portion of the shoe sole the less effective overall shoe density there is, since the mid ⁇ ole above that portion will deform more easily than if it were fully supported.
  • Fig. 49 shows more extreme shoe sole tread design, roughly equivalent to the structural changes in shoe sole thickne ⁇ and/or den ⁇ ity de ⁇ cribed in Fig ⁇ .
  • Fig. 49 like Fig. 8 from the '478, i ⁇ illus ⁇ trative of the applicant's point that bottom sole tread patterns, just like midsole or bottom sole or inner sole density, directly affect the actual structural ⁇ upport the foot receive ⁇ from the shoe sole.
  • bottom sole tread patterns just like midsole or bottom sole or inner sole density
  • the popular "center of pressure" tread pattern which is like a backward horse ⁇ hoe attached to the heel that leave ⁇ the heel area directly under the calcaneu ⁇ un ⁇ upported by tread, so that all of the weight bearing load in the heel area is transmitted to outside edge tread ⁇ .
  • Variation ⁇ of thi ⁇ pattern are extremely common in athletic ⁇ hoes and are nearly universal in running ⁇ hoe ⁇ , of which the 1991 Nike 180 model and the Avia "cantilever" ⁇ eries are examples.
  • the Fig. 49 invention can, therefore, utilize bottom sole tread patterns like any these common example ⁇ , together or even in the ab ⁇ ence of any other ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s or density variation, to achieve an effective thickness greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane, in order to achieve greater stability than the shoe sole would otherwi ⁇ e provide, a ⁇ di ⁇ cu ⁇ ed earlier under Fig ⁇ . 4-6.
  • ⁇ hoe bottom or outer ⁇ ole tread pattern ⁇ can be fairly irregular and/or complex and can thus make difficult the measurement of the outer load-bearing sur ⁇ face of the shoe sole. Consequently, thicknes ⁇ varia ⁇ tions in small portions of the shoe sole that will deform or compress without significant overall resi ⁇ tance under a wearer's body weight load to the thicknes ⁇ of the over ⁇ all load-bearing plane of the ⁇ hoe out ⁇ ole ⁇ hould be ignored during mea ⁇ urement, whether ⁇ uch ea ⁇ y deformation is made possible by very high point pres ⁇ ure or by the use of relatively compressible outsole (or underlying midsole) materials.
  • the applicant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inven ⁇ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin ⁇ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through ⁇ out its normal range of sideway ⁇ pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco ⁇ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand ⁇ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe ⁇ ole invention extend ⁇ ufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer, ⁇ foot when bare.
  • Fig. 50 is ⁇ imilar to Fig. 10, which wa ⁇ new with the '598 application and which was a combination of the shoe sole structure concepts of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; it combines the custom fit design with the contoured sides greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane. It would apply as well to the Fig 7 design with contoured side ⁇ le ⁇ than the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane, but that combination i ⁇ not shown. It would also apply to the Fig. 8 de ⁇ ign, which show ⁇ one of a typical bottom ⁇ ole tread de ⁇ ign ⁇ , but that combination is also not shown.
  • custom fit invention is also novel for ⁇ hoe sole struc- tures with sides that exceed the theoretically ideal stability plane: that is, a shoe sole with thickness greater in the side ⁇ than underneath the foot. It would also be novel for shoe sole structure ⁇ with sides that are less than the theoretically ideal stability plane, within the parameters defined in the '714 application. And it would be novel for a shoe sole ⁇ tructure that provide ⁇ stability like the barefoot, as described in Figs. 1 and 2 of the '714 application.
  • the appli- cant's invention is the structure of a conventional shoe sole that ha ⁇ been modified by having it ⁇ ⁇ ides bent up ⁇ o that their inner ⁇ urface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole side ⁇ conforming to the ground by parallel ⁇ ing it, as is conventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 appli ⁇ cation.
  • Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 appli ⁇ cation.
  • the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por- tions, including every layer or portion, is much les ⁇ than the total thickne ⁇ s of the sole portion directly underneath the foot
  • the shoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ s of the con ⁇ toured side portions are at least similar to the thick- ness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickne ⁇ variation of up to either 50 percent or 100 percent or regardless of contoured side thicknes ⁇ so long as side of some thickne ⁇ s conforms or is at least complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole when the shoe sole is on the wearer's foot sole, as mea ⁇ ured in frontal or tran ⁇ verse plane cros ⁇ sections.
  • the applicant's invention main- tains the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of sideway ⁇ pronation and ⁇ upination motion occurring during all load-bearing pha ⁇ e ⁇ of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot i ⁇ tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contra ⁇ t to unsta ⁇ ble and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf- ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out ea ⁇ ily when the ⁇ hoe ⁇ are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the ⁇ hoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of cu ⁇ tom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe ⁇ ole embodiment ⁇ include the ⁇ tructural and material flexibil- ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot ⁇ ole a ⁇ if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanic ⁇ created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are ⁇ ufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support neces ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft- ne ⁇ of many of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole materials used in shoe sole ⁇ in the exi ⁇ ting art cau ⁇ e abnormal foot pronation and ⁇ upination.
  • the heel wedge can be located per- pendicular to the subtalar axi ⁇ , which i ⁇ located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degree ⁇ medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant' ⁇ theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane concept would teach that ⁇ uch a heel wedge orientation would require con ⁇ tant ⁇ hoe sole thicknes ⁇ in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
  • the intentional undersizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since the shoe la ⁇ t need ⁇ only to be approximate to provide a virtual cu ⁇ tom fit, due to the flexible ⁇ ides.
  • the under ⁇ sized flexible shoe sole side ⁇ allow the applicant' ⁇ Fig.
  • the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the ⁇ hoe la ⁇ t, which is as ⁇ umed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51.
  • the dashed line ⁇ 29 and 51 ⁇ how what the po ⁇ ition ⁇ of the inner ⁇ urface 30 and outer ⁇ urface 31 of the ⁇ hoe sole would be when the shoe is put on the foot of the wearer.
  • the Fig. 50 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus make ⁇ much more practical the applicant' ⁇ earlier underlying naturally contoured de ⁇ ign ⁇ shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
  • the shoe sole structure ⁇ ⁇ hown in Fig. 4 and 5, then, are ⁇ imilar to what the Fig.
  • shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's load-bearing foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in this and prior applications show one line to emphasize the conceptual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, some divergence of the surface, especially under load and during locomotion would be unavoidable) .
  • the sides of the shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ tructure described under Fig. 50 can also be used to form a slightly le ⁇ optimal ⁇ tructure: a conventional shoe sole that ha ⁇ been modified by having it ⁇ ⁇ ide ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conform ⁇ to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer ⁇ urface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • a slightly le ⁇ optimal ⁇ tructure a conventional shoe sole that ha ⁇ been modified by having it ⁇ ⁇ ide ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conform ⁇ to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer ⁇ urface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • the closer the ⁇ ide ⁇ are to the shape of the wearer's foot sole the better a ⁇ a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig.
  • the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just as the foot sole deforms to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot sole and the shoe sole may start in different loca ⁇ tions — the shoe sole sides can even be conventionally flat on the ground — the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoe ⁇ do not, except when exactly upright.
  • the appli ⁇ cant's shoe sole invention includes any shoe sole — whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or ⁇ ome intermediate position, including a ⁇ hape much ⁇ maller than the wearer's foot sole — that deform ⁇ to conform to a shape at least simi ⁇ lar to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deforma ⁇ tion of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
  • the density variation pattern shown in Fig. 2 can be combined with the type shown in Fig. 11 or Fig. 51.
  • the density pattern can be constant in all cros ⁇ ⁇ ections taken along the long the long axis of the shoe ⁇ ole or the pattern can vary.
  • the applicant' ⁇ Fig. 51 ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole invention aintain ⁇ intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that ⁇ tability as demonstrated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar dem- on ⁇ tration in a conventional ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable.
  • the side ⁇ of the applicant' ⁇ shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stabil ⁇ ity of the wearer' ⁇ foot when bare.
  • the applicant' ⁇ invention main ⁇ tain ⁇ the natural ⁇ tability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout it ⁇ normal range of ⁇ ideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, includ ⁇ ing the partially contoured existing art described above.
  • the sides of the applicant's ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
  • the exact mate ⁇ rial density of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stabil ⁇ ity described above.
  • the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo ⁇ retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ tability de ⁇ ired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured side ⁇ that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or as excessive pronator — for which said ⁇ hoe is intended.
  • the shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide ⁇ are ⁇ ufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the side ⁇ of the wearer' ⁇ foot ⁇ ole when on, providing the equivalent of cu ⁇ tom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil ⁇ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
  • the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the ⁇ tructural ⁇ upport nece ⁇ ary to maintain normal pronation and ⁇ upination, a ⁇ if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft ⁇ ness of many of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole material ⁇ used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
  • the applicant has previously shown heel lift with constant frontal or transver ⁇ e plane thickness, since it is oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe ⁇ ole.
  • the heel wedge or toe taper or other ⁇ hoe sole thicknes ⁇ variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the ⁇ hoe sole
  • the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural ⁇ upport to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur.
  • the applicant' ⁇ theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane concept would teach that ⁇ uch a heel wedge orientation would require con ⁇ tant ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole thickne ⁇ in a vertical plane perpendicular to the cho ⁇ en ⁇ ubtalar joint axi ⁇ , in ⁇ tead of the frontal plane.
  • a flexible under ⁇ ized version of the fully contoured design described in Fig. 51 can also be pro ⁇ vided by a similar geometric approximation.
  • the undersized flexible shoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide ⁇ allow the appli- cant's shoe sole inventions based on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sides can be built on stan ⁇ dard shoe last ⁇ , even though conceptually those side ⁇ conform clo ⁇ ely to the ⁇ pecific ⁇ hape of the individual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible side ⁇ bend to conform when on the wearer's foot sole.
  • Fig. 51 shows the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer;
  • the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the ⁇ hoe la ⁇ t, which is assumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the shape of the outer ⁇ urface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51.
  • the dashed lines 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the shoe sole would be when the shoe i ⁇ put on the foot of the wearer.
  • the Fig. 51 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer ⁇ urface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus makes much more practical the applicant's earlier underlying naturally contoured design ⁇ shown in Fig. 1A-C and Fig. 6.
  • the shoe sole structure shown in Fig. 51, then, is what the Fig.
  • 11 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in this and prior application ⁇ ⁇ how one line to empha ⁇ ize the concep ⁇ tual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, some divergence of the surface, e ⁇ pe ⁇ cially under load and during locomotion would be unavoid- able) .
  • the sides of the shoe sole structure described under Fig. 51 can also be used to form a slightly les ⁇ optimal ⁇ tructure: a conventional ⁇ hoe sole that has been modified by having its side ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • a conventional ⁇ hoe sole that has been modified by having its side ⁇ bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional.
  • the closer the sides are to the shape of the wearer's foot sole the better as a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 11 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's shape is both possible and more effective than conventional flat shoe sole sides.
  • the shape of the flexible shoe upper ⁇ which can even be made with very ela ⁇ tic material ⁇ ⁇ uch a ⁇ lycra and spandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the shoe sole, to conform to the ⁇ hape of the foot.
  • the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just a ⁇ the foot ⁇ ole deform ⁇ to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot ⁇ ole and the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole may ⁇ tart in different loca ⁇ tion ⁇ — the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ ide ⁇ can even be conventionally flat on the ground — the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright.
  • the appli- cant's shoe sole invention includes any shoe sole — whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a shape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole — that deforms to conform to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
  • the position of the shoe sole side ⁇ before the wearer put ⁇ on the shoe is less important, since the ⁇ ides will easily conform to the shape of the wearer's foot when the shoe is put on that foot.
  • ⁇ ince the flexible ⁇ ide ⁇ could bend out ea ⁇ ily a con ⁇ iderable relative di ⁇ tance and still conform to the wearer's foot sole when on the wearer's foot.
  • the applicant's shoe sole inventions described in Figs. 4, 10, 11 and 51 all attempt to provide struc ⁇ tural compensation for actual structural change ⁇ in the feet of wearer ⁇ that have occurred from a lifetime of u ⁇ e of exi ⁇ ting ⁇ hoe ⁇ , which have a major flaw that ha ⁇ been identified and described earlier by the applicant.
  • the biomechanical motion of even the wearer's bare feet have been degraded from what they would be if the wearer's feet had not been structurally changed. Consequently, the ultimate design goal of the applicant's inventions is to provide un-degraded barefoot motion.
  • the ultimate goal of the applicant's invention i ⁇ to provide ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ tructure ⁇ that maintain the natural ⁇ tability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout it ⁇ normal range of ⁇ ide- way ⁇ pronation and ⁇ upination motion occurring during all load-bearing pha ⁇ e ⁇ of locomotion of a wearer who has never been shod in conventional shoes, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot i ⁇ tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contra ⁇ t to un ⁇ table and inflexible con ⁇ ventional shoe sole ⁇ .
  • Fig. 51 like Fig. 47, increases constructive density variations, as most typically measured in duro- meter ⁇ on a Shore A scale, to include 26 percent up to 50 percent and from 51 percent to 200 percent.
  • the same variations in shoe bottom sole design can provide similar effect ⁇ to the variation in ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole den ⁇ ity described above.
  • any of the above described thick ⁇ ness variations from a theoretically ideal stability plane can be used together with any of the above - 128 -
  • Fig. 51 show such a combination; for illustration purpose ⁇ , it shows a thicknes ⁇ increase greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane on the right side and a les ⁇ er thickne ⁇ on the left side — both sides illustrate the density variations de ⁇ cribed above. All portion ⁇ of the shoe sole are included in thickness and density measure ⁇ ment, including the sockliner or insole, the midsole (including heel lift or other thickness variation mea- sured in the sagittal plane) and bottom or outer ⁇ ole.
  • Fig. 51 invention and the Fig. 11 invention can be combined with the invention shown in Fig. 12 of the '870 application, which can also be com ⁇ bined with the other figures of this application, a ⁇ can Fig. 9A-9D of the '870 application.
  • Any of the ⁇ e figure ⁇ can al ⁇ o be combined alone or together with Fig. 9 of thi ⁇ application, which i ⁇ Fig. 9 of the '302 application or Fig. 10 of that application, or with Fig ⁇ . 11-15, 19- 28, 30, and 33A-33M of the '523 application, or with Figs.7-9 of the '313 application, or Fig. 8 of the '748 application, with or without stability sipe 11.
  • the thicknes ⁇ and den ⁇ ity varia ⁇ tion ⁇ described above can be measured from the center of the essential structural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Those elements are the ba ⁇ e and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the heads of the metatarsals, and the base of the fifth metatarsal, and the head of the first distal phalange, respectively. Of the metatarsal head ⁇ , only the fir ⁇ t and fifth metatar ⁇ al heads are used for such measurement, since only those two are located on lateral portions of the foot and thus proximate to contoured stability sides of the applicant's shoe sole.
  • Fig. 52A-B is new with this continuation-in- part application; it broadens the definition of the theo ⁇ retically ideal stability plane, as defined in the '786 and all prior applications filed by the applicant.
  • the '819 Patent and ⁇ ub ⁇ equent applications have defined the inner surface of the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane •as conforming to the shape of the wearer's foot, espe ⁇ cially its sides, so that the inner surface of the appli ⁇ cant's shoe sole invention conforms to the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, especially it ⁇ ide ⁇ , when mea ⁇ ured in frontal plane or transverse plane cros ⁇ sec ⁇ tions.
  • the right side of Fig. 52 explicitly includes an upper shoe sole surface that is complementary to the shape of all or a portion the wearer's foot sole.
  • this application describes shoe contoured sole ⁇ ide de ⁇ igns wherein the inner surface of the theoretically ideal ⁇ tability plane lies at some point between conforming or complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, that is — roughly paralleling the foot sole including its side — and par ⁇ alleling the flat ground; that inner surface of theo ⁇ retically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the foot sole during foot inversion and eversion, which is normal sideways or lateral motion.
  • the left ⁇ ide of Fig. 52B describes shoe sole side de ⁇ ign ⁇ wherein the lower ⁇ urface of the theoretically ideal stability plane, which equates to the load-bearing surface of the bottom or outer shoe sole, of the shoe sole side portions is above the plane of the underneath portion of the shoe sole, when measured in frontal or transver ⁇ e plane cro ⁇ sections; that lower surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the ground during foot inversion and eversion, which is nor ⁇ mal sideway ⁇ or lateral motion.
  • Fig. 53 i ⁇ new in this continuation-in-part application and provides a means to measure the contoured ⁇ hoe sole side ⁇ incorporated in the applicant' ⁇ inven ⁇ tion ⁇ de ⁇ cribed above.
  • Fig. 53 is Fig.
  • Figs. 54A-54F, Fig.55A-E, and Fig. 56 are new to this continuation-in-part application and describe ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole ⁇ tructural inventions that are formed with an upper surface to conform, or at lea ⁇ t be complementary, to the all or mo ⁇ t or at lea ⁇ t part of the ⁇ hape of the wearer' ⁇ foot ⁇ ole, whether under a body weight load or unloaded, but without contoured stability side ⁇ a ⁇ defined by the applicant.
  • Figs. 54-56 are simi ⁇ lar to Figs. 19-21 of the '819 Patent, but without the contoured ⁇ tability sides 28a defined in Fig. 4 of the '819 Patent and with shoe sole contoured side thickness variations, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections as defined in this and earlier applica ⁇ tions.
  • Those contoured side thicknes ⁇ variation ⁇ from the theoretically ideal stability plane are uniform thickness, variations of 5 to 10 percent, variations of 11 to 25 percent, variations of 26 to 40 percent and 41 to 50 for thickne ⁇ e ⁇ decreasing from the theoretically ideal stability plane, thicknes ⁇ variations of 26 to 50 percent and 51 percent to 100 percent for thickness variations increasing from the theoretically ideal stability plane.
  • Fig ⁇ . 54A-54F, Fig.55A-E, and Fig. 56 like the many other variation ⁇ of the applicant' ⁇ naturally con ⁇ toured design described in this and earlier applications, shown a ⁇ hoe sole invention wherein both the upper, foot sole-contacting surface of the shoe sole and the bottom, ground-contacting ⁇ urface of the ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole mirror the contour ⁇ of the bottom surface of the wearer's foot ⁇ ole, forming in effect a flexible three dimensional mirror of the load-bearing portions of that foot sole when bare.
  • the shoe sole ⁇ hown in Fig ⁇ .
  • Fig. 57A-57C is similar to Fig. 34A-34C, which show, in cros ⁇ ⁇ ection ⁇ ⁇ imilar to tho ⁇ e in pending U.S. Patent '349, that with the quadrant- ⁇ ided de ⁇ ign of Fig ⁇ .
  • Fig. 57A-C shows the same range of thickness variation in contoured shoe side as Fig. 45 and u ⁇ ed to ⁇ how simultaneously the general case for both extreme increases and extreme decrease ⁇ .
  • the quadrant de ⁇ ign determine ⁇ the shape of the load-bearing portion of outer surface of the bottom or outer sole, which is coincident with the theoretically ideal stability plane; the finishing edge 53 or 53a is optional, not a mandatory part of the invention.
  • a corrected shoe sole design avoids such unnatural interference by neutrally maintaining a constant distance between foot and ground, even when the shoe is tilted sideways, as if in effect the shoe sole were not there except to cushion and protect.
  • the corrected ⁇ hoe would move with the foot' ⁇ natural ⁇ ideways pronation and supination motion on the ground.
  • there are two po ⁇ sible geometric solution ⁇ depending upon whether just the lower horizontal plane of the shoe sole surface varies to achieve natural contour or both upper and lower surface planes vary.
  • both upper and lower surface ⁇ or planes of the shoe ⁇ ole vary to conform to the natural contour of the human foot.
  • the two plane ⁇ olution i ⁇ the mo ⁇ t fundamental concept and naturally mo ⁇ t effective. It is the only pure geo ⁇ metric solution to the mathematical problem of maintain ⁇ ing constant distance between foot and ground, and the most optimal, in the same sense that round is only ⁇ hape for a wheel and perfectly round is mo ⁇ t optimal. On the other hand, it i ⁇ the least similar to existing designs of the two possible solution ⁇ and require ⁇ computer aided design and injection molding manufacturing techniques.
  • the quadrant contour side design which will be de ⁇ cribed in Figure ⁇ 29-37, the side contours are formed by varia ⁇ tions in the bottom surface alone.
  • the upper surface or plane of the shoe sole remains unvaryingly flat in fron- tai plane cros ⁇ sections, like most existing shoes, while the plane of the bottom shoe sole varies on the sides to provide a contour that preserve ⁇ natural foot and ankle biomechanic ⁇ .
  • the one plane quadrant contour side design is still the only optimal single plane solution to the prob ⁇ lem of avoiding disruption of natural human biomechanics.
  • the one plane solution is the close ⁇ t to exi ⁇ ting shoe sole design, and therefore the easiest and cheapest to manufacture with existing equipment.
  • the one plane quad ⁇ rant contour side design is preferable for dress or street ⁇ hoe ⁇ and for light exercise, like casual walking.
  • 57A-C also ⁇ how ⁇ the special case of the radius of an intermediate shoe sole thickness, taken at (S 2 ) at the base of the fifth metatarsal in Fig. 34B, is maintained constant throughout the quadrant side ⁇ of the shoe sole, including both the heel, Fig. 34C, and the forefoot, Fig. 34A, so that the side thicknes ⁇ is les ⁇ than the theoretically ideal stability plane at the heel and more at the forefoot. Though possible, this is not a preferred approach.
  • Fig. 58 is based on Fig. IB but also show ⁇ , for purpo ⁇ e ⁇ of illu ⁇ tration, on the right ⁇ ide of Fig. 58 a relative thickne ⁇ increa ⁇ e of the contoured shoe sole side for that portion of the contoured shoe sole side beyond the limit of the full range of normal sideways foot inversion and eversion motion, while uniform thick ⁇ nes ⁇ exi ⁇ t ⁇ for the load-bearing portions of the con ⁇ toured shoe sole ⁇ ide.
  • the same relative thicknes ⁇ increa ⁇ e of the contoured ⁇ hoe ⁇ ole side could exist for that portion of the contoured shoe sole side beyond the limit of the full range of foot inversion and eversion, relatively more uniform or smaller thicknes ⁇ variation ⁇ exi ⁇ t ⁇ for the load-bearing portion ⁇ of the contoured ⁇ hoe sole side; this design could apply to Fig. 4, 5, 8, 45, 46, and 49 and other ⁇ .
  • the left ⁇ ide of Fig. 58 ⁇ how ⁇ a den ⁇ ity increa ⁇ e u ⁇ ed for the ⁇ ame purpose as the thicknes ⁇ increase.
  • the same design can be u ⁇ ed for embodi ⁇ ment ⁇ with decreasing thicknes ⁇ variations, like Fig. 7 and Fig. 48.
  • That normal range of foot inversion or ever ⁇ sion, and its corresponding limits of load-bearing outer or bottom sole surface 211, noted above and el ⁇ ewhere in thi ⁇ application can be determined either by individual mea ⁇ urement by mean ⁇ known in the art or by u ⁇ ing general exi ⁇ ting range ⁇ or range ⁇ developed by ⁇ tati ⁇ tically meaningful ⁇ tudies, including using new, more dynamically based testing procedures; such ranges may also include a extra margin for error to protect the individual wearer.

Abstract

A shoe sole (28) which is complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole.

Description

SHOE SOLE STRUCTURES
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates generally to the struc- ture of soles of shoes and other footwear, including soles of street shoes, hiking boots, sandals, slippers, and moccasins. More specifically, this invention relates to the structure of athletic shoe soles, including such examples as basketball and running shoes. Still more particularly, this application explicitly includes an alternate definition of the inner surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane as being complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot, instead of conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to a shoe last approximating it either for a specific indi¬ vidual; such alternate definition is more like a standard shoe last that approximates the exact shape and size of the individual wearer's foot sole for mass production. This application also includes the broadest possible definition for the inner surface of the contoured shoe sole sides that still defines over the prior art, namely any position between roughly paralleling the wearer's foot sole and roughly paralleling the flat ground.
Still more particularly, in its simplest con- ceptual form, this invention relates to variations in the structure of such shoes having a sole contour which fol¬ lows a theoretically ideal stability plane as a basic concept, but which deviates substantially therefrom out¬ wardly, to provide greater than natural stability, so that joint motion of the wearer is restricted, especially the ankle joint; or, alternately, which deviates substan¬ tially therefrom inwardly, to provide less than natural stability, so that a greater freedom of joint motion is allowed. Alternately, substantial density variations or bottom sole designs are used instead of, or in combina¬ tion with, substantial thickness variations for the same purpose. These shoe sole modifications are research indicating that they are necessary and useful to correct important interrelated anatomical/bio echanical imbal¬ ances or deformities of surprising large magnitude in both individuals or major population groups.
More particularly, in its simplest conceptual form, this invention is the structure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the sides of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sides conforming to the ground by paralleling it, as is conventional) . The shoe sole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole.
Still more particularly, this invention relates to shoe sole structures that are formed to conform to the all or part of the shape of the wearer's foot sole, whether under a body weight load or unloaded, but without contoured stability sides as defined by the applicant.
Still more particularly, this invention relates to variations in the structure of such soles using a theoretically ideal stability plane as a basic concept, especially including structures exceeding that plane. Finally, this invention relates to contoured shoe sole sides that provide support for sideways tilting of any angular amount from zero degrees to 180 degrees at least for such contoured sides proximate to any one or more or all of the essential stability or propulsion structures of the foot, as defined below and previously.
The parent '598 application clarified and expanded the applicant's earlier filed U.S. Application No. 07/680,134, filed April 3, 1991. The applicant has introduced into the art the concept of a theoretically ideal stability plane as a structural basis for shoe sole designs. The theoreti¬ cally ideal stability plane was defined by the applicant in previous copending applications as the plane of the surface of the bottom of the shoe sole, wherein the shoe sole conforms to the natural shape of the wearer's foot sole, particularly its sides, and has a constant thick- ness in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
Therefore, by definition, the theoretically ideal stabil¬ ity plane is the surface plane of the bottom of the shoe sole that parallels the surface of the wearer's foot sole in transverse or frontal plane cross sections. The theoretically ideal stability plane concept as implemented into shoes such as street shoes and ath¬ letic shoes is presented in U.S. Patent Numbers 4,989,349, issued February 5, 1991 and 5,317,819, issued June 7, 1994, both of which are incorporated by refer- ence; and pending U. S. application Nos. 07/400,714, filed August 30, 1989; 07/416,478, filed October 3, 1989; 07/424,509, filed October 20, 1989; 07/463,302, filed January 10, 1990; 07/469,313, filed January 24, 1990; 07/478,579, filed February 8, 1990; 07/539,870, filed June 18, 1990; 07/608,748, filed November 5, 1990;
07/783,145, filed October 28, 1991; and 07/926,523, filed August 10, 1992.
PCT applications based on the above patents and applications have been published as WO 90/00358 of Janu- ary 25, 1990 (part of the '349 Patent, all of the '819 Patent and part of '714 application) ; WO 91/03180 of March 21, 1991 (the remainder of the '714 application) ; WO 91/04683 of April 18, 1991 (the '478 application); WO 91/05491 of May 02, 1991 (the '509 application); WO 91/10377 of July 25, 1991 (the '302 application);
WO 91/11124 of August 08, 1991 (the '313 application); WO 91/11924 of August 22, 1991 (the '579 application); WO 91/19429 of December 26, 1991 (the '870 application); WO 92/07483 of May 14, 1992 (the '748 application); WO 92/18024 of October 29, 1992 (the '598 application); and WO 94/03080 of February 17, 1994 (the '523 applica¬ tion) . All of above publications are incorporated by reference in this application to support claimed prior embodiments that are incorporated in combinations with new elements disclosed in this application.
This new invention is a modification of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the earlier applica- tions and develops the application of the concept of the theoretically ideal stability plane to other shoe struc¬ tures. Each of the applicant's applications is built directly on its predecessors and therefore all possible combinations of inventions or their component elements with other inventions or elements in prior and subsequent applications have always been specifically intended by the applicant. Generally, however, the applicant's applications are generic at such a fundamental level that it is not possible as a practical matter to describe every embodiment combination that offers substantial improvement over the existing art, as the length of this description of only some combinations will testify.
Accordingly, it is a general object of this invention to elaborate upon the application of the prin- ciple of the theoretically ideal stability plane to other shoe structures.
The purpose of the earlier '523 application was to specifically describe some of the most important com¬ binations, especially those that constitute optimal ones, that exist between the applicant's U.S. Patent Applica¬ tion No. 07/400,714, filed August 30, 1989, and subse¬ quent patents filed by the applicant, particularly U.S. No. 07/416,478, filed October 3, 1989, as well as other combinations. The purpose of this application is to incorporate other elements from the applicant's patents, applications, and published PCT applications as well as to introduce new inventions with which the prior incorpo¬ rated inventions can be combined. The applicant explic¬ itly states that virtually all of his prior and herein disclosed inventions can be usefully combined with others to provide better shoe sole stability, safety, and cush¬ ioning compared to the existing art, but are mathemati¬ cally far too numerous to list all those that are i por- tant here, despite the extreme length of this applica¬ tion. This application describes only some of the most important combinations and shows even fewer, strictly for the purpose of economy. The '714 Application indicated that existing running shoes are unnecessarily unsafe. They profoundly disrupt natural human biomechanics. The resulting unnatural foot and ankle motion leads to what are abnor¬ mally high levels of running injuries. Proof of the unnatural effect of shoes has come quite unexpectedly from the discovery that, at the extreme end of its normal range of motion, the unshod bare foot is naturally stable, almost unsprainable, while the foot equipped with any shoe, athletic or otherwise, is artificially unstable and abnormally prone to ankle sprains. Consequently, ordinary ankle sprains must be viewed as largely an unnatural phenomena, even though fairly common. Compelling evidence demonstrates that the stability of bare feet is entirely different from the stability of shoe-equipped feet.
The underlying cause of the universal instabil¬ ity of shoes is a critical but correctable design flaw. That hidden flaw, so deeply ingrained in existing shoe designs, is so extraordinarily fundamental that it has remained unnoticed until now. The flaw is revealed by a novel new biomechanical test, one that is unprecedented in its simplicity. It is easy enough to be duplicated and verified by anyone; it only takes a few minutes and requires no scientific equipment or expertise. The sim- plicity of the test belies its surprisingly convincing results. It demonstrates an obvious difference in sta¬ bility between a bare foot and a running shoe, a differ¬ ence so unexpectedly huge that it makes an apparently subjective test clearly objective instead. The test proves beyond doubt that all existing shoes are unsafely unstable.
The broader implications of this uniquely unam¬ biguous discovery are potentially far-reaching. The same fundamental flaw in existing shoes that is glaringly exposed by the new test also appears to be the major cause of chronic overuse injuries, which are unusually common in running, as well as other sport injuries. It causes the chronic injuries in the same way it causes ankle sprains; that is, by seriously disrupting natural foot and ankle biomechanics.
It was a general object of the '714 invention to provide a shoe sole which, when under load and tilting to the side, deforms in a manner which closely parallels that of the foot of its wearer, while retaining nearly the same amount of contact of the shoe sole with the ground as in its upright state.
It was still another object of the '714 inven- tion to provide a deformable shoe sole having the upper portion or the sides bent inwardly somewhat so that when worn the sides bend out easily to approximate a custom fit.
It was still another object of the '714 inven- tion to provide a shoe having a naturally contoured sole which is abbreviated along its sides to only essential structural stability and propulsion elements, which are combined and integrated into the same discontinuous shoe sole structural elements underneath the foot, which approximate the principal structural elements of a human foot and their natural articulation between elements.
The '478 invention relates to variations in the structure of such shoes having a sole contour which fol¬ lows a theoretically ideal stability plane as a basic concept, but which deviates therefrom outwardly, to pro¬ vide greater than natural stability. Still more particu¬ larly, this invention relates to the use of structures approximating, but increasing beyond, a theoretically ideal stability plane to provide greater than natural stability for an individual whose natural foot and ankle biomechanical functioning have been degraded by a life¬ time use of flawed existing shoes. The '478 invention is a modification of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the earlier applica¬ tion and develops the application of the concept of the theoretically ideal stability plane to other shoe struc- tures. As such, it presents certain structural ideas which deviate outwardly from the theoretically ideal stability plane to compensate for faulty foot biomechan- ics caused by the major flaw in existing shoe designs identified in the earlier patent applications. The shoe sole designs in the '478 application are based on a recognition that lifetime use of existing shoes, the unnatural design of which is innately and seriously flawed, has produced actual structural changes in the human foot and ankle. Existing shoes thereby have altered natural human biomechanics in many, if not most, individuals to an extent that must be compensated for in an enhanced and therapeutic design. The continual repe¬ tition of serious interference by existing shoes appears to have produced individual biomechanical changes that may be permanent,so simply removing the cause is not enough. Treating the residual effect must also be under¬ taken.
Accordingly, it was a general object of the '478 invention to elaborate upon the application of the principle of the theoretically ideal stability plane to other shoe structures.
It was still another object of the '478 inven¬ tion to provide a shoe having a sole contour which devi¬ ates outwardly in a constructive way from the theoreti- cally ideal stability plane.
It was another object of the '478 invention to provide a sole contour having a shape naturally contoured to the shape of a human foot, but having a shoe sole thickness which is increases somewhat beyond the thick- ness specified by the theoretically ideal stability plane.
It is another object of this invention to pro¬ vide a naturally contoured shoe sole having a thickness somewhat greater than mandated by the concept of a theo¬ retically ideal stability plane, either through most of the contour of the sole, or at preselected portions of the sole. It is yet another object of this invention to provide a naturally contoured shoe sole having a thick¬ ness which approximates a theoretically ideal stability plane, but which varies toward either a greater thickness throughout the sole or at spaced portions thereof, or toward a similar but lesser thickness.
The '302 invention relates to a shoe having an anthropomorphic sole that copies the underlying support, stability and cushioning structures of the human foot. Natural stability is provided by attaching a completely flexible but relatively inelastic shoe sole upper directly to the bottom sole, enveloping the sides of the midsole, instead of attaching it to the top surface of the shoe sole. Doing so puts the flexible side of the shoe upper under tension in reaction to destabilizing sideways forces on the shoe causing it to tilt. That tension force is balanced and in equilibrium because the bottom sole is firmly anchored by body weight, so the destabilizing sideways motion is neutralized by the ten¬ sion in the flexible sides of the shoe upper. Still more particularly, this invention relates to support and cush¬ ioning which is provided by shoe sole compartments filled with a pressure-transmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel. Unlike similar existing systems, direct physical contact occurs between the upper surface and the lower surface of the compartments, providing firm, stable sup¬ port. Cushioning is provided by the transmitting medium progressively causing tension in the flexible and semi- elastic sides of the shoe sole. The compartments provid¬ ing support and cushioning are similar in structure to the fat pads of the foot, which simultaneously provide both firm support and progressive cushioning.
Existing cushioning systems cannot provide both firm support and progressive cushioning without also obstructing the natural pronation and supination motion of the foot, because the overall conception on which they are based is inherently flawed. The two most commer¬ cially successful proprietary systems are Nike Air, based on U.S. patents Nos. 4,219,945 issued September 2, 1980, 4,183,156 issued September 15, 1980, 4,271,606 issued June 9, 1981, and 4,340,626 issued July 20, 1982; and Asics Gel, based on U.S. patent No. 4,768,295 issued September 6, 1988. Both of these cushioning systems and all of the other less popular ones have two essential flaws.
First, all such systems suspend the upper sur¬ face of the shoe sole directly under the important struc¬ tural elements of the foot, particularly the critical the heel bone, known as the calcaneus, in order to cushion it. That is, to provide good cushioning and energy return, all such systems support the foot's bone struc¬ tures in buoyant manner, as if floating on a water bed or bouncing on a trampoline. None provide firm, direct structural support to those foot support structures; the shoe sole surface above the cushioning system never comes in contact with the lower shoe sole surface under routine loads, like normal weight-bearing. In existing cushion¬ ing systems, firm structural support directly under the calcaneus and progressive cushioning are mutually incom¬ patible. In marked contrast, it is obvious with the sim¬ plest tests that the barefoot is provided by very firm direct structural support by the fat pads underneath the bones contacting the sole, while at the same time it is effectively cushioned, though this property is underde¬ veloped in habitually shoe shod feet.
Second, because such existing proprietary cush¬ ioning systems do not provide adequate control of foot motion or stability, they are generally augmented with rigid structures on the sides of the shoe uppers and the shoe soles, like heel counters and motion control devices, in order to provide control and stability. Unfortunately, these rigid structures seriously obstruct natural pronation and supination motion and actually increase lateral instability, as noted in the applicant's pending U.S. applications Nos. 07/219,387, filed on July 15, 1988; 07/239,667, filed on September 2, 1988; 07/400,714, filed on August 30, 1989; 07/416,478, filed on October 3, 1989; and 07/424,509, filed on October 20, 1989, as well as in PCT Application No. PCT/US89/03076 filed on July 14, 1989. The purpose of the inventions disclosed in these applications was primarily to provide a neutral design that allows for natural foot and ankle biomechanics as close as possible to that between the foot and the ground, and to avoid the serious interfer¬ ence with natural foot and ankle biomechanics inherent in existing shoes. In marked contrast to the rigid-sided proprie¬ tary designs discussed above, the barefoot provides sta¬ bility at it sides by putting those sides, which are flexible and relatively inelastic, under extreme tension caused by the pressure of the compressed fat pads; they thereby become temporarily rigid when outside forces make that rigidity appropriate, producing none of the desta¬ bilizing lever arm torque problems of the permanently rigid sides of existing designs.
The applicant's '302 invention simply attempts, as closely as possible, to replicate the naturally effec¬ tive structures of the foot that provide stability, sup¬ port, and cushioning.
Accordingly, it was a general object of the '302 invention to elaborate upon the application of the principle of the natural basis for the support, stability and cushioning of the barefoot to shoe structures.
It was still another object of the '302 inven¬ tion to provide a shoe having a sole with natural stabil¬ ity provided by attaching a completely flexible but rela- tively inelastic shoe εole upper directly to the bottom sole, enveloping the sides of the midsole, to put the side of the shoe upper under tension in reaction to destabilizing sideways forces on a tilting shoe. - li ¬
lt was still another object of the '302 inven¬ tion to have that tension force is balanced and in equi¬ librium because the bottom sole is firmly anchored by body weight, so the destabilizing sideways motion is neutralized by the tension in the sides of the shoe upper.
It was another object of the '302 invention to create a shoe sole with support and cushioning which is provided by shoe sole compartments, filled with a pres- sure-transmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel, that are similar in structure to the fat pads of the foot, which simultaneously provide both firm support and pro¬ gressive cushioning.
These and other objects of the invention will become apparent from a detailed description of the inven¬ tion which follows taken with the accompanying drawings.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
This continuation-in-part application broadens the definition of the theoretically ideal stability plane, as defined in the '786 and all prior applications filed by the applicant. The '819 Patent and subsequent applications have defined the inner surface of the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane as conforming to the shape of the wearer's foot, especially its sides, so that the inner surface of the applicant's shoe sole invention conforms to the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, especially it sides, when measured in frontal plane or transverse plane cross sections. This new application explicitly includes an upper shoe sole surface that is complementary to the shape of all or a portion the wearer's foot sole; ■■con¬ forming" to that foot sole shape remains the best mode, since it gives to one skilled in the art the most exact direction or goal, so that one skilled in the art can use whatever means are available to achieve the closest con¬ formance possible, much as the art is used to achieve an accurate fit for a wearer. In addition, this application describes shoe contoured sole side designs wherein the inner surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane lies at some point between conforming or complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, that is — roughly paralleling the foot sole including its side — and par¬ alleling the flat ground; that inner surface of the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the foot sole during foot inversion and eversion, which is normal sideways or lateral motion. The basis of this design was introduced in the applicant's '302 application relative to Fig. 9 of that application.
Additionally, this application describes shoe sole side designs wherein the lower surface of the theo- retically ideal stability plane, which equates to the load-bearing surface of the bottom or outer shoe sole, of the shoe sole side portions is above the plane of the underneath portion of the shoe sole, when measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections; that lower surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the ground during foot inversion and eversion, which is normal sideways or lateral motion.
Although the inventions described in this application may in many cases be less optimal than those previously described by the applicant in earlier applica¬ tions, they nonetheless distinguish over all prior art and still do provide a significant stability improvement over existing footwear and thus provide significantly increased injury prevention benefit compared to existing footwear.
In its simplest conceptual form, the appli¬ cant's earlier invention disclosed in his '714 applica¬ tion is the structure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional) . This concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application; for the applicant's fully contoured design described in Fig. 15 of the '667 application, the entire shoe sole — including both the sides and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flat- tened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
In this continuation-in-part application, the use of this invention with otherwise conventional shoes with any side sole portion, including contoured sides with uniform or any other thickness variation or density variation, including bottom sole tread variation, espe¬ cially including those defined below by the applicant, is further clarified.
This theoretical or conceptual bending up must be accomplished in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering distortion or deformation that would neces¬ sarily occur if such a conventional shoe sole were actu¬ ally bent up simultaneously along all of its the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe sole material, such as injection molding manufacturing of the shoe sole, would be required for optimal results and therefore is prefer¬ able.
It is critical to the novelty of this funda¬ mental concept that all layers of the shoe sole are bent up around the foot sole. A small number of both street and athletic shoe soles that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom soles, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickness of the entire shoe sole, are wrapped up around portions of the wearers' foot soles; the remaining soles layers, including the insole, midsole and heel lift (or heel) of such shoe soles, constituting over half of the thickness of the entire shoe sole, remains flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearers' feet. (At the other extreme, some shoes in the existing art have flat midsoles and bottom soles, but have insoles that conform to the wearer's foot sole.) Consequently, in existing contoured shoe soles, the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por¬ tions, including every layer or portion, is much less than the total thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereas in the applicant's prior shoe sole inventions, including the '819 Patent and '714 and '478 application, as well as the applicant's other pending applications, the shoe sole thickness of the contoured side portions are the same as the thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning uniform thickness as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections, or at least similar to the thick¬ ness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickness variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections. This continuation-in-part application explic¬ itly defines those thickness variations, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections, of the appli¬ cant's shoe soles from 26 percent up to 50 percent, which distinguishes over all known prior art; the earlier '478 application specified thickness and density variations of up to 25 percent.
In addition, for shoe sole thickness deviating outwardly in a constructive way from the theoretically ideal stability plane, the shoe sole thickness variation of the applicant's shoe soles is increased in this appli¬ cation from 26 to 50 percent, and from 51 percent to 100 percent in some extreme cases, generally in the forefoot, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sec¬ tions. This application similarly increases construc¬ tive density variations, as most typically measured in durometers on a Shore A scale, to include 26 percent up to 50 percent and from 51 percent to 200 percent. The same variations in shoe bottom sole design can provide similar effects to the variation in shoe sole density described above.
In addition, any of the above described thick- ness variations from a theoretically ideal stability plane can be used together with any of the above described density or bottom sole design variations. All portions of the shoe sole are included in thickness and density measurement, including the sockliner or insole, the midsole (including heel lift or other thickness vari¬ ation measured in the sagittal plane) and bottom or outer sole.
The above described thickneεs and density vari¬ ations apply to the load-bearing portions of the con- toured sideε of the applicant'ε shoe sole inventions, the side portion being identified in Fig. 4 of the '819 Pat¬ ent. Thicknesε and denεity variationε deεcribed above are measured along the contoured side portion. The side portion of the fully contoured design introduced in the '819 Patent in Fig. 15 cannot be defined as explicitly, since the bottom portion is contoured like the sides, but should be measured by estimating the equivalent Fig. 4 figure; generally, like Figs. 14 and Fig. 15 of the '819 Patent, assuming the flattened sole portion shown in Fig. 14 corresponds to a load-bearing equivalent of Fig. 15, so that the contoured sides of Figε. 14 and Fig. 15 are essentially the same.
Alternately, the thickness and density varia¬ tions described above can be measured from the center of the esεential εtructural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Thoεe elementε are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the heads of the metatarsalε, and the baεe of the fifth metatarεal, and the head of the firεt diεtal phalange, reεpectively. Of the metatarsal heads, only the first and fifth metatarsal headε are uεed for εuch meaεurement, since only those two are located on lateral portions of the foot and thus proximate to contoured εtability sides of the applicant's shoe sole.
This major and conspicuouε structural differ¬ ence between the applicant's underlying concept and the exiεting shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore¬ mentioned equivalent or similar thickness of the applicant's shoe εole invention maintainε intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out lat¬ erally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot. The sideε of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf¬ ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot εole to maintain the lateral εtability of the wearer'ε foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant'ε εhoe εole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through- out itε normal range of εidewayε pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco¬ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand¬ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot iε tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con- trast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soleε, including the partially contoured exiεting art deεcribed above. The εideε of the applicant'ε εhoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer, foot when bare. The exact thick¬ ness and material density of the shoe sole sideε and their εpecific contour will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using εtandard biomechanical tech¬ niques of gait analysiε to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot εtability deεcribed above. Finally, the εhoe εole εideε are made of mate¬ rial εufficiently flexible to bend out eaεily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred εhoe εole embodiments include the structural and material flexibility to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole. At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necesεary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft¬ ness of many of the shoe sole materials uεed in shoe soles in the existing art cause instability in the form of abnormally excesεive foot pronation and supination.
Directed to achieving the aforementioned objects and to overcoming problemε with prior art shoes, a shoe according to the '714 invention comprises a sole having at least a portion thereof following the contour of a theoretically ideal stability plane, and which fur¬ ther includes rounded edges at the finishing edge of the sole after the last point where the constant shoe sole thicknesε iε maintained. Thuε, the upper surface of the sole does not provide an unsupported portion that creates a destabilizing torque and the bottom surface does not provide an unnatural pivoting edge.
In another aspect in the '714 application, the shoe includes a naturally contoured sole structure exhi- biting natural deformation which closely parallels the natural deformation of a foot under the same load. In a preferred embodiment, the naturally contoured side por¬ tion of the εole extendε to contours underneath the load- bearing foot. In another embodiment, the sole portion is abbreviated along its εides to eεεential εupport and propulεion elements wherein those elements are combined and integrated into the same diεcontinuous shoe sole structural elements underneath the foot, which approxi- mate the principal structural elements of a human foot and their natural articulation between elements. The density of the abbreviated shoe sole can be greater than the density of the material used in an unabbreviated shoe sole to compensate for increased presεure loading. The essential support elements include the base and lateral tuberoεity of the calcaneuε, heads of the metatarsal, and the base of the fifth metatarsal.
The '714 application shoe sole is naturally contoured, paralleling the εhape of the foot in order to parallel itε natural deformation, and made from a mate¬ rial which, when under load and tilting to the εide, deformε in a manner which cloεely parallelε that of the foot of itε wearer, while retaining nearly the εame amount of contact of the shoe sole with the ground as in its upright state under load. A deformable shoe sole according to the invention may have its sides bent inwardly somewhat so that when worn the sides bend out easily to approximate a custom fit. Directed to achieving the aforementioned objects and to overcoming problems with prior art shoes, a shoe according to the '478 invention comprises a sole having at leaεt a portion thereof following approximately the contour of a theoretically ideal εtability plane, preferably applied to a naturally contoured εhoe εole approximating the contour of a human foot. In the appli¬ cant'ε εhoe sole inventions, the shoe sole thickness of the contoured side portions are at least similar to the thickneεε of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning either a thicknesε variation from 5 to 10 percent or from 11 to 25 percent, aε measured in frontal or transverse plane crosε εections.
In another aspect of the '478 invention, the shoe includes a naturally contoured sole structure exhi- biting natural deformation which closely parallels the natural deformation of a foot under the εame load, and having a contour which approximateε, but increaεeε beyond the theoretically ideal εtability plane. When the εhoe sole thicknesε iε increased beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane, greater than natural stability results; when thickness is decreased, greater than natu¬ ral motion resultε. In a preferred embodiment of the '478 inven¬ tion, εuch variations are consistent through all frontal plane cross sectionε so that there are proportionally equal increases to the theoretically ideal stability plane from front to back. That is to say, a 25 percent thicknesε increase in the lateral stability sides of the forefoot of the shoe sole would also have a 25 percent increaseε in lateral εtability εides proximate to the base of the fifth metatarsal of a wearer's foot and a 25 increase in the lateral stability sides of the heel of the shoe sole. In alternative embodiments, the thickness may increase, then decrease at respective adjacent loca¬ tions, or vary in other thickness sequences. The thick¬ ness variations may be symmetrical on both sideε, or aεymmetrical, particularly εince it may be deεirable to provide greater εtability for the medial εide than the lateral side to compensate for common pronation problems. The variation pattern of the right shoe can vary from that of the left shoe. Variation in shoe sole density or bottom sole tread can alεo provide reduced but εimilar effectε.
Thiε invention relates to shoe sole εtructureε that are formed to conform to the all or part of the εhape of the wearer'ε foot εole, either under a body weight load (defined as one body weight or alternately as any body weight force) , but without contoured stability εideε as defined by the applicant.
Still more particularly, this invention relates to variations in the structure of such soles using a theoretically ideal stability plane aε a basic concept, especially including structures exceeding that plane. Finally, this invention relates to contoured shoe εole εides that provide support for sidewayε tilting of any angular amount from zero degreeε to 150 degrees at leaεt for such contoured sides proximate to any one or more or all of the essential stability or propulsion structures of the foot, as defined below and previously. Theεe and other featureε of the invention will become apparent from the detailed deεcription of the invention which followε.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Figs. 1 through 9 are from prior copending applications of the applicant, with some new textual specification added. Figs. 1-3 are from the '714 appli¬ cation; Figε. 4-8 are from the '478 application; and Fig.
9 iε from the '302 application.
Figε. IA to IC [8] illuεtrate functionally the principles of natural deformation as applied to the shoe soles of the '667 and '714 invention.
Fig. 2 shows variations in the relative density of the shoe εole including the εhoe inεole to maximize an ability of the sole to deform naturally. Fig. 3 shows a shoe having naturally contoured sides bent inwardly somewhat from a normal size so then when worn the εhoe approximates a custom fit.
Fig. 4 showε a frontal plane cross section at the heel portion of a shoe with naturally contoured sideε like thoεe of Fig. 24, wherein a portion of the shoe sole thicknesε iε increased beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane.
Fig. 5 is a view εimilar to Fig. 4, but of a shoe with fully contoured sides wherein the sole thick- ness increases with increasing diεtance from the center line of the ground-engaging portion of the sole.
Fig. 6 is a view εimilar to Figε. 29 and 30 showing still another density variation, one which is asymmetrical. Fig. 7 showε an embodiment like Fig. 25 but wherein a portion of the εhoe εole thickneεs is decreased to leεε than the theoretically ideal εtability plane. Fig. 8 shows a bottom sole tread design that provides a similar density variation as that in Fig. 6.
Fig. 9 is the applicant's new εhoe sole design in a sequential series of frontal plane crosε sections of the heel at the ankle joint area that correspondε exactly to the Fig. 42 εeries below.
Fig. 10 is the applicant's custom fit design utilizing downsized flexible contoured εhoe sole sides in combination with a thickness greater than the theoreti- cally ideal stability plane.
Fig. 11 iε the εame custom fit deεign in combi¬ nation with εhoe εole εide portionε having a material with greater denεity than the sole portion.
Figs. 12-23 are from the '714 application. Fig. 12 is a rear view of a heel of a foot for explaining the use of a stationery sprain simulation test.
Fig. 13 is a rear view of a conventional run¬ ning shoe unstably rotating about an edge of its sole when the shoe sole is tilted to the outside.
Fig. 14 is a diagram of the forces on a foot when rotating in a shoe of the type shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 15 is a view similar to Fig. 3 but showing further continued rotation of a foot in a shoe of the type shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 16 is a force diagram during rotation of a shoe having motion control devices and heel counters.
Fig. 17 iε another force diagram during rota¬ tion of a εhoe having a conεtant εhoe sole thicknesε, but producing a deεtabilizing torque because a portion of the upper sole surface is unsupported during rotation.
Fig. 18 shows an approach for minimizing desta¬ bilizing torque by providing only direct εtructural sup¬ port and by rounding edges of the εole and its outer and inner surfaces.
Fig. 19 shows a shoe sole having a fully con¬ toured design but having sideε which are abbreviated to the eεsential structural stability and propulεion ele- mentε that are combined and integrated into discontinuous structural elements underneath the foot that simulate those of the foot.
Fig. 20 is a diagram serving as a basiε for an expanded diεcuεεion of a correct approach for measuring shoe sole thickness.
Fig. 21 showε εeveral embodimentε wherein the bottom εole includeε moεt or all of the εpecial contours of the new designs and retains a flat upper surface. Fig. 22, in Figs. 22A - 22C, show frontal plane cross sectionε of an enhancement to the previouεly- deεcribed embodiment.
Fig. 23 shows, in Figs. 23A - 23C, the enhance¬ ment of Fig. 39 applied to the naturally contoured sides embodiment of the invention.
Figs. 24-34 are from the '478 application.
Fig. 24 εhows, in frontal plane crosε section at the heel portion of a shoe, the applicant's prior invention of a shoe sole with naturally contoured sides based on a theoretically ideal stability plane.
Fig. 25 showε, again in frontal plane cross section, the most general case of the applicant's prior invention, a fully contoured shoe sole that follows the natural contour of the bottom of the foot aε well aε its sideε, also based on the theoretically ideal εtability plane.
Fig. 26, as seen in Figs. 26A to 26C in frontal plane crosε section at the heel, showε the applicant'ε prior invention for conventional εhoes, a quadrant-sided shoe sole, based on a theoretically ideal εtability plane.
Fig. 28 iε a view εimilar to Figε. 4 ,5 & 27 wherein the εole thickneεεeε vary in diverεe εequenceε.
Fig. 29 iε a frontal plane cross section show- ing a density variation in the midsole.
Fig. 30 is a view εimilar to Fig. 29 wherein the firmest density material is at the outermost edge of the midsole contour. Fig. 31 shows a variation in the thicknesε of the εole for the quadrant embodiment which iε greater than a theoretically ideal stability plane.
Fig. 32 shows a quadrant embodiment as in Fig. 31 wherein the density of the sole varies.
Fig. 33 showε embodiments like Figs. 24 through 26 but wherein a portion of the shoe εole thickness is decreased to lesε than the theoretically ideal stability plane. Fig. 34 show embodimentε with sideε both greater and leεεer than the theoretically ideal stability plane.
Figs. 35-44 are from the '302 application. Fig. 35 is a perspective view of a typical athletic shoe for running known to the prior art to which the invention is applicable.
Fig. 36 illustrateε in a cloεe-up frontal plane cross section of the heel at the ankle joint the typical shoe of existing art, undeformed by body weight, when tilted sidewayε on the bottom edge.
Fig. 37 εhows, in the same close-up cross sec¬ tion as Fig. 2, the applicant'ε prior invention of a naturally contoured shoe sole design, also tilted out. Fig. 38 shows a rear view of a barefoot heel tilted laterally 20 degrees.
Fig. 39 showε, in a frontal plane cross section at the ankle joint area of the heel, the applicant'ε new invention of tenεion εtabilized εideε applied to hiε prior naturally contoured shoe εole. Fig. 40 εhowε, in a frontal plane croεε section close-up, the Fig. 5 deεign when tilted to itε edge, but undeformed by load.
Fig. 41 shows, in frontal plane crosε section at the ankle joint area of the heel, the Fig. 5 design when tilted to its edge and naturally deformed by body weight, though constant shoe sole thicknesε iε maintained undeformed. Fig. 42 is a sequential serieε of frontal plane cross sections of the barefoot heel at the ankle joint area. Fig. 8A is unloaded and upright; Fig. 8B is moder¬ ately loaded by full body weight and upright; Fig. 8C is heavily loaded at peak landing force while running and upright; and Fig. 8D is heavily loaded and tilted out laterally to its about 20 degree maximum.
Fig. 43 is the applicant's new εhoe sole deεign in a sequential serieε of frontal plane croεε sections of the heel at the ankle joint area that correspondε exactly to the Fig. 8 εeries above.
Fig. 44 is two perspective views and a close-up view of the structure of fibrous connective tissue of the groups of fat cells of the human heel. Fig. 10A showε a quartered section of the calcaneus and the fat pad cham¬ bers below it; Fig. 10B showε a horizontal plane cloεe-up of the inner εtructureε of an individual chamber; and Fig. 10D εhows a horizontal section of the whorl arrange¬ ment of fat pad undemeath the calcaneus. Figs. 45 - 58 are new to this continuation-in- part application.
Fig. 45 is similar to Fig. 4, but showε more extreme thickneεs increase variations.
Fig. 46 is similar to Fig. 5, but showε more extreme thickneεε increaεe variationε.
Fig. 47 iε similar to Fig. 6, but shows more extreme density variations.
Fig. 48 is similar to Fig. 7, but shows more extreme thicknesε decreaεe variationε. Fig. 49 iε εimilar to Fig. 8, but εhows more extreme bottom εole tread pattern variationε.
Fig. 50 is similar to Fig. 10, but shows more extreme thicknesε increase variations
Fig. 51 is similar to Fig. ll, but showε more extreme denεity variations.
Fig. 52 is similar to Fig. IA, but shows on the right side an upper shoe sole surface of the contoured side that is complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole; on the left side Fig. 52 showε an upper εur¬ face between complementary and parallel to the flat ground and a lower surface of the contoured shoe sole side that is not in contact with the ground. Fig. 53 is like Fig. 27 of the '819 Patent, but with angular measurementε of the contoured εhoe sole sides indicated from zero degrees to 180 degrees.
Fig. 54 is similar to Fig. 19 of the '819 Pat¬ ent, but without contoured stability sides. Figs. 55-56 are similar to Figs. 20-21 of the
'819 Patent, but without contoured stability εideε.
Fig. 57 iε εimilar to Fig. 34, which iε Fig. 15 of the '478 application showing the applicant's design with the outer surface defined by a part of a quadrant, but with more extreme thicknesε variationε.
Fig. 58 is based on Fig. IB but also showε, for purpoεeε of illuεtration, on the right side a relative thickness increase of the contoured shoe sole εide for that portion of the contoured shoe sole side beyond the limit of the full range of normal sideways foot inversion and eversion motion, and on the left side, a εimilar relative density increase.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS Figs. 1A-C illustrate, in frontal or tranεverεe plane croεs sections in the heel area, the applicant's concept of the theoretically ideal stability plane applied to shoe soleε.
Figε. 1A-1C illuεtrate clearly the principle of natural deformation as it applies to the applicant's design, even though design diagrams like those preceding (and in his previous applications already referenced) are normally εhown in an ideal εtate, without any functional deformation, obviouεly to εhow their exact shape for proper construction. That natural structural shape, with its contour paralleling the foot, enables the shoe sole to deform naturally like the foot. In the applicant's invention, the natural deformation feature creates such an important functional advantage it will be illustrated and discussed here fully. Note in the figures that even when the shoe sole shape is deformed, the constant εhoe sole thickness in the frontal plane feature of the inven- tion is maintained.
Fig. IA is Fig. 8A in the applicant's U.S. Patent Application No.07/400,714 and Fig. 15 in his 07/239,667 Application. Fig. IA shows a fully contoured shoe sole design that follows the natural contour of all of the foot sole, the bottom as well aε the sides. The fully contoured shoe sole assumes that the resulting slightly rounded bottom when unloaded will deform under load aε εhown in Fig. IB and flatten juεt as the human foot bottom iε slightly round unloaded but flattens under load. Therefore, the shoe sole material must be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot. The design applies particularly to the heel, but to the rest of the shoe εole aε well. By pro¬ viding the closes match to the natural shape of the foot, the fully contoured design allows the foot to function as naturally aε poεsible. Under load, Fig. IA would deform by flattening to look eεεentially like Fig. IB.
Figε. IA and IB show in frontal plane cross section the essential concept underlying this invention, the theoretically ideal stability plane which is also theoretically ideal for efficient natural motion of all kinds, including running, jogging or walking. For any given individual, the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 is determined, first, by the deεired εhoe sole thick- ness (ε) in a frontal plane croεs section, and, εecond, by the natural shape of the individual's foot εurface 29.
For the caεe εhown in Fig. IB, the theoreti¬ cally ideal εtability plane for any particular individual (or εize average of individualε) iε determined, first, by the given frontal plane crosε εection εhoe εole thickneεε (ε) ; εecond, by the natural εhape of the individual'ε foot; and, third, by the frontal plane cross section width of the individual'ε load-bearing footprint which iε defined aε the εupper surface of the shoe sole that is in physical contact with and supportε the human foot sole.
Fig. IB is Fig. 8B of the '714 application and showε the same fully contoured design when upright, under normal load (body weight) and therefore deformed natu¬ rally in a manner very closely paralleling the natural deformation under the same load of the foot. An almoεt identical portion of the foot sole that is flattened in deformation is alεo flatten in deformation in the shoe sole. Fig. IC is Fig. 8C of the '714 application and shows the same design when tilted outward 20 degrees laterally, the normal barefoot limit; with virtually equal accuracy it shows the opposite foot tilted 20 degrees inward, in fairly severe pronation. As shown, the deformation of the shoe εole 28 again very cloεely parallelε that of the foot, even aε it tiltε. Just as the area of foot contact is almost as great when tilted 20 degrees, the flattened area of the deformed shoe sole is also nearly the same as when upright. Consequently, the barefoot fully supported structurally and its natural stability is maintained undiminished, regardless of shoe tilt. In marked contrast, a conventional shoe, shown in Fig. 12, makes contact with the ground with only its relatively sharp edge when tilted and is therefore inher- ently unstable.
The capability to deform naturally is a design feature of the applicant's naturally contoured shoe sole deεignε, whether fully contoured or contoured only at the εideε, though the fully contoured design iε most optimal and is the moεt natural, general caεe, aε note in the referenced September 2, 1988, Application, assuming shoe sole material such as to allow natural deformation. It iε an important feature becauεe, by following the natural deformation of the human foot, the naturally deforming εhoe sole can avoid interfering with the natural biome¬ chanics of the foot and ankle.
Fig. IC also represents with reasonable accu¬ racy a shoe sole design corresponding to Fig. IB, a natu- rally contoured shoe sole with a conventional built-in flattening deformation, as in Fig. 14 of the above refer¬ enced September 2, 1988, Application, except that design would have a slight crimp at 145. Seen in this light, the naturally contoured side design in Fig. IB is a more conventional, conservative design that is a special case of the more generally fully contoured deεign in Fig. IA, which is the closest to the natural form of the foot, but the least conventional. In its εimpleεt conceptual form, the appli¬ cant's Fig 1 invention is the εtructure of a conventional εhoe sole that has been modified by having itε εideε bent up so that their inner surface conforms to the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the εhoe εole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application. For the applicant'ε fully contoured design, the entire shoe sole — including both the sides and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to the shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
Thiε theoretical or conceptual bending up muεt be accomplished in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering distortion or deformation that would neces¬ sarily occur if such a conventional shoe sole were actu¬ ally bent up simultaneously along all of its the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe sole material, such as injection molding manufacturing of the shoe sole, would be required for optimal results and therefore is prefer¬ able.
It is critical to the novelty of this fundamen- tai concept that all layers of the shoe sole are bent up around the foot sole. A εmall number of both εtreet and athletic εhoe soles that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom soles, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickness of the entire shoe sole, are wrapped up around portions of the wearer's foot soles; the remaining sole layers, including the insole, the mid- sole and the heel lift (or heel) of such shoe εoles, con¬ stituting over half of the thickness of the entire shoe sole, remains flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearers' feet.
Consequently, in existing contoured shoe soleε, the εhoe εole thickness of the contoured side portions is much less than the thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereaε in the applicant's εhoe sole inventions in the '819 Patent the shoe sole thickneεε of the contoured side portions are the εame as the thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot.
This major and conspicuouε εtructural differ¬ ence between the applicant'ε underlying concept and the exiεting εhoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore- mentioned equivalent or similar thickness of the appli¬ cant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, aε demonεtrated when the foot iε unεhod and tilted out laterally in inverεion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a εimilar dem- onεtration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend εufficiently far up the εideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral εtabil- ity of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's εhoe sole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer'ε foot when bare through¬ out itε normal range of εideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaseε of loco¬ motion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when εaid foot iε tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contraεt to unεtable and inflexible conventional εhoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain that natural stability and uninterrupted motion.
For the Fig. 1 shoe sole invention, the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe εole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sides that is provided said shoe sole being εufficient to maintain intact the firm εtability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
As mentioned earlier, Fig. IA is Fig. 15 in the applicant's 07/239,667 Application; however, it does not show the heel lift 38 which is included in the original Fig. 15. That heel lift is shown with constant frontal or transverse plane thicknesε, since it is oriented con¬ ventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole; consequently, the thicknesε of the heel lift decreases uniformly in the frontal or transverse plane between the heel and the forefoot when moving forward along the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the con- ventional heel wedge, or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknesε variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole, can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment.
For example, the heel wedge can be rotated inward in the horizontal plane εo that it is located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
Fig. 2 iε Fig. 9 of the '714 application and shows, in frontal or transverεe plane cross section in the heel area, the preferred relative density of the shoe sole, including the insole aε a part, order to maximize the εhoe εole's ability to deform naturally following the natural deformation of the foot sole. Regardless of how many shoe sole layers (including insole) or laminations of differing material densities and flexibility are used in total, the εofteεt and moεt flexible material 147 εhould be cloεest to the foot sole, with a progression through lesε εoft 148 to the firmeεt and least flexible 149 at the outermost shoe sole layer, the bottom sole.
This arrangement helps to avoid the unnatural side lever arm/torque problem mentioned in the previous several figures.
Fig. 3, which is a frontal or transverse plane croεs section at the heel, is Fig. 10 from the appli¬ cant's copending U. S. Patent Application No. 07/400,714, filed August 30, 1989. Fig. 3 illustrates that the applicant's naturally contoured εhoe εole εideε can be made to provide a fit so close as to approximate a custom fit. By molding each mass-produced shoe size with sides that are bent in somewhat from the position 29 they would normally be in to conform to that standard size shoe last, the shoe soleε so produced will very gently hold the sideε of each individual foot exactly. Since the shoe sole iε designed as described in connection with
Fig. 2 (Fig. 9 of the applicant's copending application No. 07/400,714) to deform easily and naturally like that of the bare foot, it will deform easily to provide this deεigned-in custom fit. The greater the flexibility of the shoe sole sides, the greater the range of individual foot size. This approach applies to the fully contoured design described here in Fig. IA (Fig. 8A of the '714 application) and in Fig. 15, United States Patent Appli¬ cation 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988), as well, which would be even more effective than the naturally contoured sides design shown in Fig. 3.
Besides providing a better fit, the intentional undersizing of the flexible εhoe εole sides allows for simplified design of εhoe εole laεts, since they can be designed according to the simple geometric methodology described in the textual specification of Fig. 27, United States Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988). That geometric approximation of the true actual contour of the human is close enough to provide a virtual custom fit, when compensated for by the flexible undersizing from standard εhoe laεts deεcribed above.
Expanding on the '714 Application, a flexible underεized verεion of the fully contoured deεign deεcribed in Fig. IA (and 8A of the '714 application) can also be provided by a similar geometric approximation. As a reεult, the underεized flexible εhoe εole sides allow the applicant's shoe sole inventionε baεed on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sides can be built on standard shoe lastε, even though conceptually thoεe εideε conform closely to the specific εhape of the indi- vidual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to conform when on the wearer's foot εole.
Fig. 3 shows the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer; the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the shoe last, which is aεεumed to be a reaεonably accurate approximation of the εhape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal εtability plane 51. Thus, the dashed lineε 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the shoe sole would be when the shoe is put on the foot of the wearer. Numbering with the figures in this application is consistent with the numbering used in prior applica- tions of the applicant.
The Fig. 3 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thuε akeε much more practical the applicant'ε earlier underlying naturally contoured deεignε εhown in Figs. 1A-C. The shoe sole structureε εhown in Fig. 1, then, are what the Fig. 3 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot εole of the wearer 29 (the figureε in this and prior applications show one line to emphasize the conceptual coincidence of what in fact are two lineε; in real world embodimentε, some divergence of the surface, especially under load and during locomotion would be unavoidable) . In its simpleεt conceptual form, the appli¬ cant'ε invention iε the εtructure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sideε being flat on the ground, aε is con¬ ventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application. For the applicant's fully contoured design described in Fig. 15 of the '667 application, the entire shoe sole — includ¬ ing both the εideε and the portion directly underneath the foot — iε bent up to conform to a εhape nearly iden¬ tical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3. Thiε theoretical or conceptual bending up must be accomplished in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering distortion or deformation that would neces¬ sarily occur if such a conventional shoe sole were actu- ally bent up simultaneously along all of its the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe sole material, such as injection molding manufacturing of the εhoe εole, would be required for optimal resultε and therefore iε prefer- able.
It iε critical to the novelty of thiε funda¬ mental concept that all layerε of the shoe sole are bent up around the foot sole. A small number of both street and athletic shoe soleε that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom εoleε, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickneεε of the entire εhoe sole, are wrapped up around portionε of the wearers' foot soles; the midsole and heel lift (or heel) of such shoe soleε, conεtituting over half of the thickness of the entire shoe sole, remains flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearers' feet. (At the other extreme, some shoes in the existing art have flat midsoles and bottom soles, but have insoles that conform to the wearer's foot sole.)
Consequently, in existing contoured shoe soleε, the εhoe sole thicknesε of the contoured εide portions is much less than the thicknesε of the εole portion directly underneath the foot, whereaε in the applicant'ε shoe sole inventions the εhoe sole thickneεs of the contoured side portions are the same as the thickness of the sole por¬ tion directly underneath the foot.
This major and conspicuouε εtructural differ¬ ence between the applicant'ε underlying concept and the existing shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore¬ mentioned equivalent thickness of the applicant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stabil- ity of the wearer's foot, as demonstrated when the foot is unεhod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar demonstration in a con- ventional εhoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sideε of the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare. In addition, the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion maintains the natural εtability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through¬ out its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco- motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand¬ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con¬ trast to unstable and inflexible conventional εhoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above. The εideε of the applicant'ε shoe sole invention extend εufficiently far up the εideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare.
For the Fig. 3 shoe εole invention, the amount of any shoe εole εide portions coplanar with the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane iε determined by the degree of εhoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sideε that iε provided εaid εhoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the εhoe iε intended and alεo typical of the kind of wearer — εuch as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
The shoe sole sides of the Fig. 3 invention are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibility to deform in parallel to the natural deforma¬ tion of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics cre¬ ated by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe εole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural εupport necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft¬ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
Fig. 3 is a frontal or transverεe plane cross section at the heel, so the structure is shown at one of the esεential εtructural support and propulsion elements, as specified by applicant in his copending 07/239,667 application in its Fig. 21 specification. The essential structural support elements are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus 95, the heads of the metatar- εalε 96, and the base of the fifth metatarsal 97; the eεεential propulsion element is the head of the first distal phalange 98. The Fig. 3 shoe sole structure can be abbreviated along its sideε to only the eεεential structural support and propulsion elements, like Fig. 21 of the '667 application. The Fig. 3 design can also be abbreviated underneath the shoe sole to the same esεen¬ tial εtructural εupport and propulsion elements, as shown in Fig. 28 of the '667 Application.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA, the applicant has previously shown heel lifts with conεtant frontal or transverse plane thickness, since it is ori¬ ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other εhoe εole thickness variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 3 design. For example, the heel wedge can be rotated inward in the horizontal plane so that it is located per¬ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; εuch a orientation may provide better, more natural εupport to the εubtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant εhoe εole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen εubtalar joint axiε, instead of the frontal plane.
The sides of the shoe sole εtructure deεcribed under Fig. 3 can alεo be used to form a slightly leεε optimal εtructure: a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its εideε bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional. Clearly, the cloεer the sides are to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, the better as a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 3 to a shape εlightly εmaller than the wearer' shape is both posεible and more effective than conventional flat εhoe sole sideε. And in εome caεeε, such as for diabetic patients, it may be optimal to have relatively loose shoe sole sideε providing no conforming preεεure of the εhoe sole on the tender foot εole; in εuch caεeε, the εhape of the flexible εhoe upperε, which can even be made with very elaεtic materialε such as lycra and εpandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the shoe sole, to conform to the shape of the foot. Aε discussed earlier by the applicant, the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just as the foot sole deforms to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot sole and the shoe sole may start in different loca¬ tions — the shoe sole sideε can even be conventionally flat on the ground — the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright. Consequently, the appli¬ cant's shoe sole invention, stated most broadly, includes any shoe sole - whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a shape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole — that deforms to conform to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load. Of course, it is optimal in terms of preεerving natural foot biomechanicε, which is the primary goal of the applicant, for the shoe sole to conform to the foot εole when on the foot, not just when under a weight-bear¬ ing load. And, in any case, all of the esεential struc- tural support and propulsion elements previously identi¬ fied by the applicant in discussing Fig. 3 must be sup¬ ported by the foot sole.
To the extent the shoe sole sides are easily flexible, as has already been specified as desirable, the position of the shoe sole sides before the wearer puts on the shoe is less important, since the sides will easily conform to the shape of the wearer's foot when the shoe is put on that foot. In view of that, even shoe εole εideε that conform to a εhape more than εlightly εmaller than the εhape of the outer εurface of the wearer's foot sole would function in accordance with the applicant's general invention, εince the flexible εideε could bend out easily a considerable relative distance and still conform to the wearer's foot sole when on the wearer's foot.
Fig. 4 is Fig. 4 from the applicant's copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478, filed October 3, 1989. Fig. 4 illustrates, in frontal or transverse plane cross section in the heel area, the applicant's new inven¬ tion of shoe sole side thicknesε increaεing beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane to increase stability somewhat beyond its natural level. The unavoidable trade-off resulting is that natural motion would be restricted somewhat and the weight of the shoe sole would increase somewhat.
Fig. 4 shows a situation wherein the thickneεs of the sole at each of the opposed sides is thicker at the portions of the sole 31a by a thicknesε which gradu¬ ally varies continuously from a thickness (s) through a thickneεs (s+sl) , to a thickneεε (ε+s2) .
These deεignε recognize that lifetime uεe of exiεting shoes, the design of which haε an inherent flaw that continually disrupts natural human biomechanics, has produced thereby actual structural changes in a human foot and ankle to an extent that must be compensated for. Specifically, one of the moεt common of the abnormal effectε of the inherent exiεting flaw is a weakening of the long arch of the foot, increasing pronation. These designε therefore modify the applicant's preceding designs to provide greater than natural stability and should be particularly useful to individualε, generally with low arches, prone to pronate excessively, and could be used only on the medial side. Similarly, individuals with high arches and a tendency to over supinate and lateral ankle sprains would also benefit, and the design could be uεed only on the lateral εide. A εhoe for the general population that compensates for both weaknesses in the same shoe would incorporate the enhanced stability of the design compensation on both sides.
The new design in Fig. 4 (like Figε. 1 and 2 of the '478 application) allows the shoe sole to deform naturally closely paralleling the natural deformation of the barefoot under load; in addition, shoe sole material must be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot. The new designs retain the essential novel aspect of the earlier designε; namely, contouring the shape of the εhoe εole to the shape of the human foot. The difference is that the shoe εole thickness in the frontal plane is allowed to vary rather than remain uni- formly constant. More specifically, Fig. 4 (and Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the '478 application) εhow, in frontal plane cross sectionε at the heel, that the shoe sole thicknesε can increase beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane 51, in order to provide greater than natural stability. Such variations (and the following variations) can be consistent through all frontal plane crosε sections, so that there are proportionately equal increaseε to the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 from the front of the shoe sole to the back, or that the thicknesε can vary, preferably continuously, from one frontal plane to the next.
The exact amount of the increase in shoe sole thicknesε beyond the theoretically ideal εtability plane iε to be determined empirically. Ideally, right and left shoe soles would be custom designed for each individual based on an biomechanical analysis of the extent of his or her foot and ankle disfunction in order to provide an optimal individual correction. If epidemiological studies indicate general corrective patterns for specific categories of individuals or the population as a whole, then maεε-produced corrective εhoeε with εoleε incorpo¬ rating contoured εideε exceeding the theoretically ideal stability plane would be possible. It is expected that any such mass-produced corrective shoes for the general population would have contoured side portion thicknesses exceeding the theoretically ideal stability plane by an amount of 5 percent to 10 percent , preferably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inver¬ sion and eversion, which is sideways or lateral foot motion. More specific groups or individuals with more severe disfunction could have an empirically demonstrated need for greater corrective thicknesses of the contoured side portion on the order of 11 to 25 percent more than the theoretically ideal stability plane, again, prefer¬ ably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inverεion and everεion, which iε sideways or lateral foot motion. The optimal contour for the increased contoured side thickness may also be determined empirically.
As described in the '478 Application, in its simpleεt conceptual form, the applicant'ε Fig. 4 inven¬ tion iε the εtructure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sideε bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape of the outer sur¬ face of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sides conforming to the ground by paralleling it, as is conventional) ; thiε concept iε like that deεcribed in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application. For the applicant's fully contoured design described in Fig. 15 of the '667 application, the entire shoe sole — including both the sides and the portion directly under¬ neath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot εole εhown in Fig. 4.
This theoretical or conceptual bending up must be accomplished in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering distortion or deformation that would neces¬ sarily occur if such a conventional shoe sole were actu- ally bent up simultaneously along all of its the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe sole material, such aε injection molding manufacturing of the εhoe sole, would be required for optimal results and therefore is prefer¬ able.
It is critical to the novelty of thiε funda¬ mental concept that all layers of the shoe sole in Fig. 4 are bent up around the foot sole. A small number of both street and athletic shoe soles that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom soleε, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickneεε of the entire εhoe εole, are wrapped up around portions of the wearers' foot soles; the midsole and heel lift (or heel) of such shoe soles, constituting over half of the thickness of the entire shoe sole, remains flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearers' feet. (At the other extreme, some shoes in the existing art have flat midsoles and bottom soles, but have insoleε that conform to the wearer's foot sole.)
Consequently, in existing contoured shoe soles, the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por- tions, including every layer or portion, is much lesε than the total thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereas in the applicant'ε '478 shoe sole invention the shoe sole thickness of the contoured side portions are at least similar to the thicknesε of the εole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickneεε variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
This major and conspicuous structural differ¬ ence between the applicant's underlying concept and the existing shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore¬ mentioned similar thicknesε of the applicant's εhoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar demonstration in a con¬ ventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unεtable. The εides of the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion extend sufficiently far up the sideε of the wearer's foot εole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare. In addition, the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through¬ out itε normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco- motion of the wearer, including when the wearer iε stand¬ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soleε, including the partially contoured exiεting art deεcribed above. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact thickneεε of the εhoe εole sides and their specific contour will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using εtandard biomechanical techniqueε of gait analyεiε to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stability described above.
For the Fig. 4 shoe εole invention, the amount of any εhoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe εole εtability deεired and the εhoe εole weight and bulk required to provide εaid εtability; the amount of εaid coplanar contoured εideε that iε provided εaid εhoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the uεe for which the εhoe iε intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
In general, the applicant'ε preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necesεary to maintain normal pronation and εupination, aε if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft¬ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA, the applicant has previously shown heel liftε with conεtant frontal or tranεverεe plane thickness, since it is ori- ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other shoe sole thickneεε variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 4 design.
For example, the heel wedge can be located per¬ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degreeε medially, although a different angle can be uεed baεe on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thicknesε in a vertical plane perpendicular to the choεen εubtalar joint axiε, inεtead of the frontal plane.
Fig. 5 iε Fig. 5 in the applicant'ε copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478 and εhowε, in frontal or tranεverεe plane croεε εection in the heel area, a variation of the enhanced fully contoured design wherein the shoe sole begins to thicken beyond the theo- retically ideal εtability plane 51 at the contoured εides portion, preferably at least in that part of the con¬ toured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bear¬ ing during the full range of inversion and eversion, which is εidewayε or lateral foot motion.
Fig. 6 is Fig. 10 in the applicant's copending '478 Application and showε, in frontal or transverse plane crosε εection in the heel area, that εimilar varia¬ tionε in shoe midsole (other portions of the shoe sole area not shown) density can provide similar but reduced effects to the variations in shoe sole thickness described previously in Figs. 4 and 5. The major advan¬ tage of this approach is that the structural theoreti¬ cally ideal stability plane iε retained, εo that natu- rally optimal stability and efficient motion are retained to the maximum extent posεible. Theεe conεtructive den¬ εity variationε are moεt typically meaεured in durometerε on a Shore A scale, to include from 5 percent to 10 per¬ cent and from 11 percent up to 25 percent. The density variations are located preferably at leaεt in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inversion and ever¬ sion, which is sidewayε or lateral foot motion.
The '478 Application showed midsole only, εince that iε where material denεity variation haε hiεtorically been moεt common. Denεity variationε can and do, of courεe, alεo occur in other layerε of the εhoe εole, εuch as the bottom sole and the inner εole, and can occur in any combination and in εymmetrical or asymmetrical pat- terns between layers or between frontal or transverse plane crosε sections.
The major and conspicuous structural difference between the applicant's underlying concept and the exist¬ ing shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dramatic functional difference between the two: the aforementioned similar thicknesε of the applicant'ε εhoe εole invention maintainε intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar demonstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sideε of the applicant'ε shoe sole invention extend suf¬ ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's shoe sole inven- tion maintains the natural εtability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through¬ out its normal range of sidewayε pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaseε of loco¬ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer iε stand- ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con¬ trast to unεtable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art deεcribed above. The εides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact mate¬ rial denεity of the εhoe sole sideε will be determined empirically for individualε and groupε using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine thoεe combinations that best provide the barefoot stabil¬ ity described above.
For the Fig. 6 εhoe εole invention, the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo- retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sideε that iε provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — εuch as normal or excesεive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
In general, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil- ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excesεive εoft- ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soleε in the exiεting art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA, the applicant has previously shown heel lifts with constant frontal or transverse plane thickness, since it is ori- ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe εole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other shoe sole thickness variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 4 design.
For example, the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be uεed baεe on individual or group teεting; εuch a orientation may provide better, more natural εupport to the εubtalar joint, through which critical pronation and εupination motion occur. The applicant'ε theoretically ideal εtability plane concept would teach that εuch a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thicknesε in a vertical plane perpendicular to the choεen εubtalar joint axiε, inεtead of the frontal plane. Fig. 7 iε Fig. 14B of the applicant'ε '478 Application and shows, in frontal or transverse plane cross sectionε in the heel area, embodiments like those in Fig. 4 through 6 but wherein a portion of the shoe sole thickness is decreased to lesε than the theoreti¬ cally ideal εtability plane, the amount of the thickness variation as defined for Fig. 4 and 5 above, preferably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inverεion and eversion, which is sideways or lateral foot motion. It is anticipated that some individuals with foot and ankle biomechanics that have been degraded by existing shoeε may benefit from εuch embodimentε, which would provide leεε than natural stability but greater freedom and motion, and less εhoe sole weight and bulk. Fig. 7 showε a embodiment like the fully contoured design in Fig. 5, but with a show εole thickneεε decreas¬ ing with increasing distance from the center portion of the sole. Fig. 8 is Fig. 13 of the '478 Application and showε, in frontal or tranεverεe plane cross section, a bottom sole tread design that provides about the same overall shoe sole density variation as that provided in Fig. 6 by midsole density variation. The less supporting tread there is under any particular portion of the shoe sole, the less effective overall shoe density there iε, since the midsole above that portion will deform more easily than if it were fully supported.
Fig. 8 from the '478 is illuεtrative of the applicant'ε point that bottom εole tread patterns, just like midsole or bottom sole or inner sole density, directly affect the actual structural support the foot receives from the shoe sole. Not shown, but a typical example in the real world, is the popular "center of presεure" tread pattern, which is like a backward horse¬ shoe attached to the heel that leaves the heel area directly under the calcaneus unεupported by tread, εo that all of the weight bearing load in the heel area iε transmitted to outside edge treads. Variations of this pattern are extremely common in athletic shoes and are nearly universal in running shoes, of which the 1991 Nike 180 model and the Avia "cantilever" series are examples. The applicant's '478 shoe εole invention can, therefore, utilize bottom sole tread patterns like any these common examples, together or even in the absence of any other shoe sole thickness or density variation, to achieve an effective thicknesε greater than the theoreti- cally ideal stability plane, in order to achieve greater stability than the shoe sole would otherwise provide, as discussed earlier under Figε. 4-6.
Since shoe bottom or outer sole tread patterns can be fairly irregular and/or complex and can thus make difficult the measurement of the outer load-bearing sur¬ face of the shoe sole. Consequently, thickneεε varia¬ tions in small portions of the shoe sole that will deform or compress without significant overall resiεtance under a wearer's body weight load to the thickness of the over- all load-bearing plane of the shoe out sole should be ignored during measurement, whether such easy deformation is made possible by very high point pressure or by the use of relatively compressible outsole (or underlying midsole) materialε. Portionε of the outεole bottom εurface compoεed of materialε (or made of a delicate εtructure, much like the εmall raiεed markerε on new tire treads to prove the tire iε brand new and unused) that wear relatively quickly, so that thicknesε variations that exist when the shoe sole is new and unused, but disappear quickly in use, should also be ignored when measuring shoe εole thickneεs in frontal or transverεe plane croεs sections. Similarly, midsole thicknesε variations of unused shoe soleε due to the uεe of materialε or structures that compact or expand quickly after use should also be ignore when measuring shoe sole thickneεε in frontal or trans¬ verse plane crosε sections. The applicant'ε εhoe εole invention maintainε intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion extend sufficiently far up the εides of the wearer's foot εole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare. In addition, the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through¬ out its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaseε of loco- motion of the wearer, including when the wearer iε εtand- ing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot iε tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contraεt to unεtable and inflexible conventional shoe soleε, including the partially contoured exiεting art deεcribed above. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sideε of the wearer'ε foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact thickness and material density of the bottom sole tread, as well aε the εhoe εole sides and their specific contour, will be determined empirically for individuals and groups uεing εtandard biomechanical techniqueε of gait analyεiε to determine thoεe combinationε that beεt provide the barefoot εtability deεcribed above. Fig. 9 iε Fig. 9A from the applicant'ε copend¬ ing U.S. Patent Application No. 07/463,302, filed January 10, 1990. Fig. 9A εhowε, alεo in croεs sectionε at the heel, a naturally contoured shoe sole design that paral¬ lels as closely as posεible the overall natural cushion- ing and stability syεtem of the barefoot (deεcribed in Fig. 8 of the '302 Application), including a cuεhioning compartment 161 under εupport εtructureε of the foot containing a preεεure-transmitting medium like gas, gel, or liquid, like the subcalcaneal fat pad under the calca¬ neus and other bones of the foot; consequently, Figε. 9A- D from '302, εhown completely in Figε. 43A-D in this application, directly correspond to Figs. 8A-D of '302, shown as Figs 42A-D in this application. The optimal pressure-tranεmitting medium is that which most cloεely approximateε the fat padε of the foot; εilicone gel iε probably most optimal of materials currently readily available, but future improvements are probable; since it transmits pressure indirectly, in that it compresses in volume under pressure, gas is significantly lesε optimal. The gas, gel, or liquid, or any other effective material, can be further encapsulated itself, in addition to the sides of the shoe sole, to control leakage and maintain uniformity, as is common conventionally, and can be sub¬ divided into any practical number of encapεulated areas within a compartment, again as is common conventionally. The relative thickness of the cushioning compartment 161 can vary, as can the bottom sole 149 and the upper mid- εole 147, and can be consistent or differ in various areas of the shoe sole; the optimal relative sizes should be those that approximate moεt closely those of the aver¬ age human foot, which suggeεtε both smaller upper and lower soleε and a larger cushioning compartment than shown in Fig. 9. And the cuεhioning compartmentε or pads 161 can be placed anywhere from directly underneath the foot, like an insole, to directly above the bottom sole. Optimally, the amount of compression created by a given load in any cushioning compartment 161 should be tuned to approximate as closely as posεible the compreεεion under the correεponding fat pad of the foot.
The function of the subcalcaneal fat pad is not met εatiεfactorily with existing proprietary cushioning systemε, even thoεe featuring gaε, gel or liquid aε a pressure transmitting medium. In contrast to those arti¬ ficial systemε, the new deεign εhown is Fig. 9 conforms to the natural contour of the foot and to the natural method of transmitting bottom preεsure into side tenεion in the flexible but relatively non-stretching (the actual optimal elasticity will require empirical studies) sideε of the shoe sole.
Existing cushioning systemε like Nike Air or Asicε Gel do not bottom out under moderate loadε and rarely if ever do εo even partially under extreme loadε; the upper εurface of the cuεhioning device remains sus¬ pended above the lower surface. In contrast, the new design in Fig. 9 provides firm support to foot support structures by providing for actual contact between the lower surface 165 of the upper midsole 147 and the upper surface 166 of the bottom sole 149 when fully loaded under moderate body weight pressure, as indicated in Fig. 9B, or under maximum normal peak landing force during running, as indicated in Fig. 9C, just as the human foot does in Figs. 42B and 42C. The greater the downward force tranεmitted through the foot to the εhoe, the greater the compression presεure in the cuεhioning com¬ partment 161 and the greater the reεulting tension of the shoe sole εideε.
Fig. 9D εhowε the εame shoe sole design when fully loaded and tilted to the natural 20 degree lateral limit, like Fig. 41D. Fig. 9D showε that an added sta¬ bility benefit of the natural cushioning system for shoe soles is that the effective thickneεs of the shoe sole is reduced by compresεion on the εide εo that the potential destabilizing lever arm represented by the shoe sole thickness is also reduced, so foot and ankle stability is increaεed. Another benefit of the Fig. 9 deεign iε that the upper midεole εhoe surface can move in any horizontal direction, either sidewayε or front to back in order to abεorb εhearing forceε; that shearing motion is con¬ trolled by tension in the sides. Note that the right side of Figs. 9A-D is modified to provide a natural creaεe or upward taper 162, which allows complete side compresεion without binding or bunching between the upper and lower shoe sole layers 147, 148, and 149; the shoe sole crease 162 parallels exactly a similar crease or taper 163 in the human foot.
Another possible variation of joining shoe upper to shoe bottom sole is on the right (lateral) side of Figs. 9A-D, which makes use of the fact that it is optimal for the tension absorbing shoe sole sides, whether shoe upper or bottom sole, to coincide with the Theoretically Ideal Stability Plane along the side of the shoe sole beyond that point reached when the shoe is tilted to the foot's natural limit, so that no destabil¬ izing shoe εole lever arm iε created when the εhoe iε tilted fully, aε in Fig. 9D. The joint may be moved up εlightly so that the fabric εide does not come in contact with the ground, or it may be cover with a coating to provide both traction and fabric protection.
It should be noted that the Fig. 9 design pro¬ vides a structural basis for the shoe sole to conform very easily to the natural shape of the human foot and to parallel easily the natural deformation flattening of the foot during load-bearing motion on the ground. This is true even if the shoe εole iε made conventionally with a flat εole, aε long aε rigid structures such as heel coun¬ ters and motion control devices are not used; though not optimal, such a conventional flat shoe made like Fig. 9 would provide the essential features of the new invention resulting in significantly improved cushioning and sta¬ bility. The Fig. 9 design could also be applied to intermediate-shaped shoe soles that neither conform to the flat ground or the naturally contoured foot. In addition, the Fig. 9 design can be applied to the appli¬ cant's other designs, such as those described in his pending U.S. application No. 07/416,478, filed on October 3, 1989.
In εummary, the Fig. 9 deεign εhowε a εhoe con- εtruction for a εhoe, including: a εhoe εole with a com¬ partment or compartmentε under the εtructural elements of the human foot, including at least the heel; the com¬ partment or compartments contains a presεure-tranεmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel; a portion of the upper surface of the shoe sole compartment firmly contacts the lower surface of said compartment during normal load- bearing; and presεure from the load-bearing is transmit- ted progresεively at leaεt in part to the relatively inelaεtic sides, top and bottom of the shoe sole compart¬ ment or compartments, producing tension.
The applicant's Fig. 9 invention can be com¬ bined with the Fig. 3 invention, although the combination is not shown; the Fig. 9 invention can be combined with Figs. 10 and 11 below. Also not shown, but useful com¬ binations, is the applicant's Figs. 3, 10 and 11 inven¬ tions with all of the applicant's deformation εipes inventions, the first of a sequence of applications on various embodiments of that sipes invention is U.S. No. 07/424,509, filed October 20, 1989, and with his inven¬ tions based on other sagittal plane or long axis shoe sole thickness variations described in U.S. Application No. 07/469,313, filed January 24, 1990. All of the applicant's shoe sole invention men¬ tioned immediately above maintain intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer'ε foot, that εtability as demon¬ strated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar demonstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the εideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's invention main¬ tains the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unsta- ble and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf¬ ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact material den¬ sity of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysiε to determine thoεe combinations that best provide the barefoot stabil¬ ity described above.
For the shoe sole combination inventions list immediately above, the amount of any shoe sole side por¬ tions coplanar with the theoretically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability deεired and the εhoe εole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar con¬ toured sides that is provided said shoe sole being suffi¬ cient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or as excesεive pronator — for which said shoe is intended. Finally, the shoe sole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoeε are put on the wearer'ε feet and therefore the εhoe εoleε gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a maεε-produced shoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot εole aε if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanicε created by rigid conventional εhoe εole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necesεary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft¬ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
Fig. 10 was new with this '598 application and is a combination of the shoe sole structure concepts of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; it combines the custom fit design with the contoured sides greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane. It would apply as well to the Fig. 7 design with contoured sideε leεε than the theoretically ideal stability plane, but that combination is not shown. It would also apply to the Fig. 8 design, which εhowε a bottom sole tread design, but that combination is also not shown.
While the Fig. 3 custom fit invention is novel for shoe sole structures as defined by the theoretically ideal stability plane, which specifies constant shoe sole thickness in frontal or transverse plane, the Fig. 3 cus- torn fit invention iε alεo novel for shoe sole structures with sides that exceed the theoretically ideal stability plane: that is, a shoe sole with thicknesε greater in the sides than underneath the foot. It would also be novel for shoe sole structureε with sides that are less than the theoretically ideal stability plane, within the parameters defined in the '714 application. And it would be novel for a shoe sole εtructure that provides stabil¬ ity like the barefoot, as described in Figs, l and 2 of the '714 application. In its simplest conceptual form, the appli¬ cant's invention iε the εtructure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sideε conforming to the ground by parallel¬ ing it, aε is conventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 appli- cation. For the applicant's fully contoured design described in Fig. 15 of the '667 Application, the entire shoe sole — including both the sideε and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot sole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
This theoretical or conceptual bending up muεt be accompliεhed in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering diεtortion or deformation that would neces¬ sarily occur if such a conventional shoe sole were actu¬ ally bent up simultaneously along all of its the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe sole material, such aε injection molding manufacturing of the εhoe εole, would be required for optimal results and therefore is prefer¬ able.
It is critical to the novelty of this fundamen- tai concept that all layers of the shoe sole are bent up around the foot sole. A small number of both street and athletic shoe soles that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom soleε, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickneεε of the entire εhoe εole, are wrapped up around portionε of the wearers' foot soleε; the midεole and heel lift (or heel) of such shoe soleε, conεtituting over half of the thickneεε of the entire shoe sole, remains flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearers' feet. (At the other extreme, some shoeε in the exiεting art have flat midsoles and bottom εoleε, but have inεoles that conform to the wearer'ε foot sole.)
Consequently, in exiεting contoured εhoe εoles, the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por¬ tions, including every layer or portion, is much leεs than the total thickness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereas in the applicant's prior shoe sole inventions the shoe sole thickness of the con¬ toured side portions are at least similar to the thick¬ ness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickness variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverεe plane cross sections. This major and conspicuous structural differ¬ ence between the applicant's underlying concept and the existing shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore- mentioned similar thicknesε of the applicant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability aε demonstrated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar dem¬ onstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stabil- ity of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's invention main¬ tains the natural εtability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout itε normal range of εidewayε pronation and εupination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaεeε of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unsta¬ ble and inflexible conventional shoe soleε, including the partially contoured exiεting art deεcribed above. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf¬ ficiently far up the sideε of the wearer'ε foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact thickness and material density of the shoe sole sides and their specific contour will be determined empirically for indi¬ viduals and groups using standard biomechanical tech- niqueε of gait analysis to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stability described above. For the Fig. 10 shoe εole invention, the amount of any εhoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo- retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sideε that iε provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such aε normal or aε exceεεive pronator — for which said shoe is intended. Finally, the shoe sole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out eaεily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodimentε include the εtructural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer'ε foot εole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodimentε are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contraεt, the exceεsive soft- neεε of many of the εhoe εole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA and Fig. 3, the applicant has previouεly εhown heel lift with conεtant frontal or tranεverse plane thickness, since it is oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknesε variationε in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the εhoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 10 design.
For example, the heel wedge can be located per¬ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
Besideε providing a better fit, the intentional underεizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since the shoe last needs only to be approximate to provide a virtual custom fit, due to the flexible sides. As a result, the under¬ sized flexible shoe sole sides allow the applicant's Fig. 10 shoe sole invention based on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sideε can be built on εtandard εhoe laεtε, even though conceptually thoεe sides conform to the specific shape of the individual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to so conform when on the wearer'ε foot εole.
Fig. 10 shows the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer; the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the shoe laεt, which is assumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the εhape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51. Thus, the dashed lines 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the shoe sole would be when the shoe is put on the foot of the wearer.
The Fig. 10 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured εhoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus makes much more practical the applicant's earlier underlying naturally contoured designs shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The shoe sole structureε shown in Fig. 4 and 5, then, are what the Fig. 10 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's load-bearing foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in this and prior applications εhow one line to emphasize the conceptual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, some divergence of the sur¬ face, especially under load and during locomotion would be unavoidable) . The sides of the shoe sole structure described under Fig. 10 can also be used to form a slightly less optimal structure: a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but εlightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the εhoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as iε conventional. Clearly, the cloεer the εideε are to the εhape of the wearer's foot sole, the better aε a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 10 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's εhape iε both possible and more effective than conventional flat shoe sole sides. And in some caseε, εuch as for diabetic patients, it may be optimal to have relatively loose shoe sole εideε providing no conforming preεεure of the εhoe εole on the tender foot sole; in such cases, the shape of the flexible shoe uppers, which can even be made with very elastic materials such as lycra and spandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the shoe sole, to conform to the shape of the foot.
As discussed earlier by the applicant, the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just as the foot sole deforms to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot sole and the shoe sole may εtart in different loca¬ tionε - the shoe sole sides can even be conventionally flat on the ground - the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright. Consequently, the applicant's shoe sole invention, stated most broadly, includes any shoe sole - whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a εhape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole - that deforms to conform to a εhape at least similar to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
Of course, it is optimal in terms of preserving natural foot biomechanics, which is the primary goal of the applicant, for the shoe sole to conform to the foot sole when on the foot, not just when under a weight-bear¬ ing load. And, in any caεe, all of the eεεential εtruc¬ tural support and propulsion elements previously identi¬ fied by the applicant earlier in discuεεing Fig. 3 muεt be supported by the foot sole.
To the extent the shoe sole sides are easily flexible, as has already been specified as desirable, the position of the shoe sole sideε before the wearer putε on the shoe is less important, since the sides will easily conform to the shape of the wearer's foot when the shoe is put on that foot. In view of that, even shoe sole sides that conform to a shape more than slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole would function in accordance with the applicant's general invention, since the flexible sides could bend out easily a considerable relative distance and still conform to the wearer's foot εole when on the wearer's foot.
Fig. 11 iε new with thiε application and iε a combination of the εhoe sole εtructure conceptε of Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; it combineε the cuεtom fit deεign with the contoured εideε having material denεity variations that produce an effect similar to variations in shoe sole thickneεs shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 7; only the midsole is shown. The denεity variation pattern εhown in Fig. 2 can be combined with the type shown in Fig. 11. The density pattern can be constant in all crosε εectionε taken along the long the long axiε of the εhoe εole or the pattern can vary.
The applicant's Fig. 11 shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inverεion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a εimilar dem¬ onstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sides of the applicant's εhoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stabil¬ ity of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's invention main¬ tains the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of sideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unsta¬ ble and inflexible conventional shoe εoleε, including the partially contoured exiεting art deεcribed above. The sides of the applicant's shoe εole invention extend εuf- ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact material den¬ sity of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysiε to determine thoεe combinationε that beεt provide the barefoot εtabil¬ ity deεcribed above.
For the Fig. 11 shoe sole invention, the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theoret¬ ically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole εtability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said εtability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sideε that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the uεe for which the εhoe iε intended and also typical of the kind of wearer - such as normal or as excessive pronator - for which said shoe is intended.
Finally, the shoe sole εideε are sufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoeε are put on the wearer'ε feet and therefore the εhoe εoleε gently hold the εideε of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of custom fit in a masε-produced εhoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodimentε include the εtructural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodimentε are εufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural εupport neceεεary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive εoft- neεε of many of the εhoe sole materials uεed in εhoe εoleε in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA and Fig. 3, the applicant has previously shown heel lift with constant frontal or transverse plane thicknesε, εince it iε oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or tranεverεe plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknesε variationε in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. IA design.
For example, the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the εubtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degreeε medially, although a different angle can be uεed baεe on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe εole thickness in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane. Besides providing a better fit, the intentional undersizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since the shoe last needs only to be approximate to provide a virtual custom fit, due to the flexible sides. As a result, the under- sized flexible shoe sole sideε allow the applicant'ε Fig. 10 εhoe εole invention baεed on the theoretically ideal εtability plane to be manufactured in relatively εtandard εizeε in the εame manner aε are εhoe upperε, since the flexible shoe sole εideε can be built on εtandard shoe lasts, even though conceptually those sides conform to the specific shape of the individual wearer's foot εole, becauεe the flexible εideε bend to εo conform when on the wearer's foot sole. Beεideε providing a better fit, the intentional undersizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lastε, εince they can be deεigned according to the simple geometric methodology described in the textual specification of Fig. 27, United States Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988). That geometric approximation of the true actual contour of the human is close enough to provide a virtual custom fit, when compensated for by the flexible undersizing from standard shoe lastε deεcribed above.
A flexible underεized verεion of the fully contoured deεign deεcribed in Fig. 11 can alεo be provided by a εimilar geometric approximation. As a result, the undersized flexible shoe sole sideε allow the applicant'ε shoe sole inventions based on the theoreti¬ cally ideal εtability plane to be manufactured in rela¬ tively εtandard εizeε in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sides can be built on standard εhoe laεts, even though conceptually thoεe sides conform closely to the specific shape of the indi¬ vidual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to conform when on the wearer's foot sole.
Fig. 11 shows the shoe sole εtructure when not on the foot of the wearer; the daεhed line 29 indicates the position of the shoe last, which is assumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the εhape of the outer εurface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51. Thus, the daεhed lines 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the εhoe sole would be when the εhoe iε put on the foot of the wearer.
The Fig. 11 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially itε sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus makeε much more practical the applicant's earlier underlying naturally contoured designε shown in Fig. 1A-C and Fig. 6. The shoe sole structure shown in Fig. 61, then, is what the Fig. 11 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in thiε and prior applications show one line to emphasize the concep¬ tual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, εome divergence of the εurface, eεpe¬ cially under load and during locomotion would be unavoid- able) .
The εideε of the shoe sole structure described under Fig. 11 can also be used to form a slightly less optimal structure: a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having its sides bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer εurface of the foot sole of the wearer, inεtead of the εhoe εole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional. Clearly, the closer the sideε are to the εhape of the wearer'ε foot sole, the better as a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 11 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's shape is both possible and more effective than conventional flat shoe sole εides. And in some cases, such as for diabetic patients, it may be optimal to have relatively loose shoe sole sides providing no conforming presεure of the shoe sole on the tender foot sole; in such cases, the shape of the flexible shoe uppers, which can even be made with very elastic materials such as lycra and spandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the εhoe sole, to conform to the shape of the foot.
As discuεεed earlier by the applicant, the critical functional feature of a εhoe εole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just aε the foot εole deformε to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot εole and the shoe sole may start in different loca¬ tions - the shoe εole sides can even be conventionally flat on the ground - the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright. Consequently, the applicant's shoe sole invention, εtated moεt broadly, includeε any εhoe sole - whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a shape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole - that deforms to conform to the theo- retically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
Of course, it is optimal in termε of preεerving natural foot biomechanicε, which iε the primary goal of the applicant, for the εhoe εole to conform to the foot sole when on the foot, not just when under a weight-bear¬ ing load. And, in any case, all of the essential struc¬ tural support and propulsion elements previously identi¬ fied by the applicant earlier in discusεing Fig. 3 muεt be supported by the foot sole.
To the extent the shoe sole sideε are eaεily flexible, aε has already been εpecified aε desirable, the position of the shoe sole εides before the wearer puts on the shoe is less important, since the sideε will eaεily conform to the εhape of the wearer'ε foot when the εhoe iε put on that foot. In view of that, even shoe εole εides that conform to a shape more than slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot εole would function in accordance with the applicant's general invention, since the flexible sideε could bend out eaεily a conεiderable relative diεtance and εtill conform to the wearer'ε foot εole when on the wearer's foot.
The applicant'ε shoe sole inventions deεcribed in Figε. 4, 10 and 11 all attempt to provide structural compensation for actual structural changes in the feet of wearers that have occurred from a lifetime of use of existing εhoeε, which have a major flaw that has been identified and described earlier by the applicant. As a result, the biomechanical motion of even the wearer's bare feet have been degraded from what they would be if the wearer's feet had not been structurally changed. Consequently, the ultimate design goal of the applicant's inventions is to provide un-degraded barefoot motion. That means to provide wearers with εhoe εoleε that com¬ pensate for their flawed barefoot structure to an extent sufficient to provide foot and ankle motion equivalent to that of their bare feet if never shod and therefore not flawed. Determining the biomechanical characteristics of such un-flawed bare feet will be difficult, either on an individual or group basiε. The difficulty for many groups of wearers will be in finding un-flawed, never- shod barefoot from similar genetic groups, asεuming εig¬ nificant genetic differences exist, aε εeems at least poεεible if not probable.
The ultimate goal of the applicant'ε invention is to provide shoe sole εtructureε that maintain the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of side¬ wayε pronation and εupination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaεeε of locomotion of a wearer who has never been shod in conventional shoeε, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible con¬ ventional shoe soles.
Figs. 12-23 are Figs. 1-7 and 11-15, respec- tively, from the '714 application.
Fig. 12 εhowε in a real illuεtration a foot 27 in poεition for a new biomechanical teεt that iε the baεis for the discovery that ankle sprains are in fact unnatural for the bare foot. The test simulates a lateral ankle sprain, where the foot 27 - on the ground
43 - rollε or tilts to the outside, to the extreme end of its normal range of motion, which is usually about 20 degrees at the heel 29, as shown in a rear view of a bare (right) heel in Fig. 12. Lateral (inversion) sprainε are the most common ankle sprainε, accounting for about three-fourths of all.
The eεpecially novel aεpect of the teεting approach iε to perform the ankle spraining εimulation while εtanding εtationary. The abεence of forward motion iε the key to the dramatic εucceεε of the teεt becauεe otherwise it is impossible to recreate for testing pur¬ poses the actual foot and ankle motion that occurs during a lateral ankle sprain, and simultaneously to do it in a controlled manner, while at normal running speed or even jogging εlowly, or walking. Without the critical control achieved by εlowing forward motion all the way down to zero, any teεt subject would end up with a sprained ankle.
That is because actual running in the real world is dynamic and involves a repetitive force maximum of three times one's full body weight for each footεtep, with sudden peaks up to roughly five or εix times for quick stopε, miεsteps, and direction changes, as might be experienced when spraining an ankle. In contrast, in the static simulation test, the forces are tightly controlled and moderate, ranging from no force at all up to whatever maximum amount that iε comfortable. The Stationary Sprain Simulation Test (SSST) consists simply of standing stationary with one foot bare and the other shod with any shoe. Each foot alternately is carefully tilted to the outside up to the extreme end of its range of motion, εimulating a lateral ankle εprain.
The Stationary Sprain Simulation Test clearly identifies what can be no lesε than a fundamental flaw in exiεting εhoe deεign. It demonstrates conclusively that nature's biomechanical system, the bare foot, is far superior in stability to man's artificial εhoe deεign. Unfortunately, it alεo demonstrates that the shoe'ε severe inεtability overpowerε the natural εtability of the human foot and synthetically creates a combined bio- mechanical εyεtem that is artificially unstable. The shoe is the weak link.
The teεt εhowε that the bare foot is inherently stable at the approximate 20 degree end of normal joint range because of the wide, εteady foundation the bare heel 29 provideε the ankle joint, aε seen in Fig. 12. In fact, the area of physical contact of the bare heel 29 with the ground 43 is not much leεε when tilted all the way out to 20 degreeε aε when upright at 0 degreeε. The new Stationary Sprain Simulation Test pro¬ vides a natural yardstick, totally misεing until now, to determine whether any given εhoe allows the foot within it to function naturally. If a shoe cannot pass this simple litmus test, it is positive proof that a particu- lar shoe is interfering with natural foot and ankle bio¬ mechanics. The only question is the exact extent of the interference beyond that demonstrated by the new test. Conversely, the applicant'ε deεignε are the only deεignε with εhoe εoleε thick enough to provide cuεhioning (thin-soled and heel-lesε moccasins do pasε the teεt, but do not provide cushioning and only moderate protection) that will provide naturally stable perfor¬ mance, like the bare foot, in the Stationary Sprain Simu¬ lation Test. Fig. 13 showε that, in complete contrast the foot equipped with a conventional running εhoe, desig¬ nated generally by the reference numeral 20 and having an upper 21, though initially very stable while reεting com¬ pletely flat on the ground, beco eε immediately unεtable when the εhoe εole 22 iε tilted to the outside. The tilting motion lifts from contact with the ground all of the shoe sole 22 except the artificially sharp edge of the bottom outεide corner. The shoe sole instability increases the farther the foot is rolled laterally. Eventually, the instability induced by the shoe itself is so great that the normal load-bearing presεure of full body weight would actively force an ankle εprain .if not controlled. The abnormal tilting motion of the shoe does not stop at the barefoot's natural 20 degree limit, aε you can see from the 45 degree tilt of the shoe heel in Fig. 13.
That continued outward rotation of the shoe past 20 degrees causeε the foot to slip within the shoe, shifting its position within the shoe to the outside edge, further increasing the shoe'ε εtructural inεtabil- ity. The εlipping of the foot within the shoe is caused by the natural tendency of the foot to slide down the typically flat surface of the tilted shoe sole; the more the tilt, the stronger the tendency. The heel is shown in Fig. 13 because of its primary importance in sprains due to its direct physical connection to the ankle liga¬ ments that are torn in an ankle εprain and alεo because of the heel's predominant role within the foot in bearing body weight.
It is easy to see in the two figures how totally different the physical shape of the natural bare foot is compared to the shape of the artificial shoe sole. It is strikingly odd that the two objects, which apparently both have the same biomechanical function, have completely different physical εhapeε. Moreover, the shoe sole clearly does not deform the same way the human foot sole does, primarily as a consequence of its dis- εimilar shape.
Fig. 14A illustrateε that the underlying prob¬ lem with existing shoe designε iε fairly eaεy to under¬ stand by looking closely at the principal forces acting on the physical structure of the shoe sole. When the shoe is tilted outwardly, the weight of the body held in the shoe upper 21 shifts automatically to the outside edge of the shoe sole 22. But, strictly due to its unnatural shape, the tilted shoe sole 22 provides abεo- lutely no supporting physical structure directly under- neath the shifted body weight where it is critically needed to support that weight. An eεεential part of the εupporting foundation iε miεεing. The only actual struc¬ tural support comes from the sharp corner edge 23 of the shoe sole 22, which unfortunately is not directly under the force of the body weight after the shoe is tilted. Instead, the corner edge 23 iε offεet well to the inεide. Aε a reεult of that unnatural miεalignment, a lever arm 23a iε εet up through the εhoe sole 22 between two interacting forces (called a force couple) : the force of gravity on the body (usually known as body weight 133) applied at the point 24 in the upper 21 and the reaction force 134 of the ground, equal to and opposite to body weight when the shoe is upright. The force couple cre¬ ates a force moment, commonly called torque, that forces the shoe 20 to rotate to the outside around the sharp corner edge 23 of the bottom εole 22, which serves as a stationary pivoting point 23 or center of rotation. Unbalanced by the unnatural geometry of the shoe εole when tilted, the oppoεing two forces produce torque, causing the shoe 20 to tilt even more. As the shoe 20 tilts further, the torque forcing the rotation becomes even more powerful, so the tilting proceεs becomes a self-reenforcing cycle. The more the shoe tilts, the more destabilizing torque is produced to fur¬ ther increase the tilt.
The problem may be easier to understand by looking at the diagram of the force components of body weight shown in Fig. 14A.
When the shoe sole 22 is tilted out 45 degrees, as shown, only half of the downward force of body weight 133 is physically supported by the shoe sole 22; the supported force component 135 is 71% of full body weight 133. The other half of the body weight at the 45 degree tilt is unsupported physically by any shoe sole struc¬ ture; the unεupported component is also 71% of full body weight 133. It therefore produces strong destabilizing outward tilting rotation, which is resisted by nothing structural except the lateral ligaments of the ankle. Fig. 14B show that the full force of body weight 133 is split at 45 degrees of tilt into two equal components: εupported 135 and unsupported 136, each equal to .707 of full body weight 133. The two vertical compo¬ nentε 137 and 138 of body weight 133 are both equal to .50 of full body weight. The ground reaction force 134 is equal to the vertical component 137 of the supported component 135.
Fig. 15 show a summary of the force components at shoe sole tilts of 0, 45 and 90 degrees. Fig. 15, which uses the same reference numerals as in Fig. 14, shows that, as the outward rotation continueε to 90 degreeε, and the foot slips within the shoe while liga¬ ments stretch and/or break, the destabilizing unsupported force component 136 continueε to grow. When the shoe sole has tilted all the way out to 90 degrees (which unfortunately doeε happen in the real world) , the εole 22 is providing no structural support and there is no sup¬ ported force component 135 of the full body weight 133. The ground reaction force at the pivoting point 23 is zero, since it would move to the upper edge 24 of the shoe sole. At that point of 90 degree tilt, all of the full body weight 133 is directed into the unresiεted and unsupported force component 136, which is destabilizing the shoe sole very powerfully. In other wordε, the full weight of the body is physically unsupported and there- fore powering the outward rotation of the shoe sole that produces an ankle sprain. Inεidiouεly, the farther ankle ligamentε are stretched, the greater the force on them.
In stark contrast, untilted at 0 degrees, when the shoe sole is upright, resting flat on the ground, all of the force of body weight 133 is phyεically εupported directly by the shoe sole and therefore exactly equals the supported force component 135, as also shown in Fig. 15. In the untilted position, there is no destabilizing unsupported force component 136. Fig. 16 illustrates that the extremely rigid heel counter 141 typical of existing athletic shoes, together with the motion control device 142 that are often used to strongly reinforce those heel counters (and sometimes also the sides of the mid- and forefoot) , are ironically counterproductive. Though they are intended to increase stability, in fact they decrease it. Fig. 16 shows that when the shoe 20 is tilted out, the foot is shifted within the upper 21 naturally against the rigid structure of the typical motion control device 142, instead of only the outεide edge of the εhoe sole 22 itεelf. The motion control support 142 increaseε by almost twice the effective lever arm 132 (compared to 23a) between the force couple of body weight and the ground reaction force at the pivot point 23. It doubles the deεtabilizing torque and alεo increases the effective angle of tilt so that the destabilizing force component 136 becomes greater compared to the supported component 135, also increasing the destabilizing torque. To the extent the foot shifts further to the outside, the prob¬ lem becomes worse. Only by removing the heel counter 141 and the motion control deviceε 142 can the extenεion of the deεtabilizing lever arm be avoided. Such an approach would primarily rely on the applicant'ε contoured εhoe sole to "cup" the foot (especially the heel) , and to a much lesser extent the non-rigid fabric or other flexible material of the upper 21, to position the foot, including the heel, on the shoe. Essentially, the naturally con- toured sides of the applicant's shoe sole replace the counter-productive existing heel counters and motion control devices, including those which extend around virtually all of the edge of the foot.
Fig. 17 εhows that the same kind of torsional problem, though to a much more moderate extent, can be produced in the applicant's naturally contoured design of the applicant's earlier filed applications. There, the concept of a theoretically-ideal stability plane waε developed in termε of a sole 28 having a lower surface 31 and an upper surface 30 which are spaced apart by a pre¬ determined diεtance which remainε conεtant throughout the εagittal frontal planeε. The outer surface 27 of the foot is in contact with the upper εurface 30 of the sole 28. Though it might seem desirable to extend the inner surface 30 of the shoe sole 28 up around the sides of the foot 27 to further support it (especially in creating anthropomorphic designs) , Fig. 17 indicates that only that portion of the inner shoe sole 28 that is directly supported structurally underneath by the rest of the shoe sole is effective in providing natural support and sta¬ bility. Any point on the upper εurface 30 of the εhoe sole 28 that is not supported directly by the constant shoe sole thickneεε (aε meaεured by a perpendicular to a tangent at that point and εhown in the shaded area 143) will tend to produce a moderate destabilizing torque. To avoid creating a destabilizing lever arm 132, only the supported contour sides and non-rigid fabric or other material can be used to position the foot on the shoe sole 28.
Fig. 18 illuεtrateε an approach to minimize structurally the destabilizing lever arm 32 and therefore the potential torque problem. After the last point where the constant shoe sole thickneεs (s) is maintained, the finishing edge of the shoe sole 28 should be tapered gradually inward from both the top surface 30 and the bottom surface 31, in order to provide matching rounded or semi-rounded edges. In that way, the upper surface 30 does not provide an unsupported portion that createε a deεtabilizing torque and the bottom εurface 31 doeε not provide an unnatural pivoting edge. The gap 144 between εhoe εole 28 and foot εole 29 at the edge of the shoe sole can be "caulked" with exceptionally soft sole mate- rial as indicated in Fig. 18 that, in the aggregate (i.e. all the way around the edge of the εhoe εole) , will help poεition the foot in the εhoe sole. However, at any point of pressure when the shoe tilts, it will deform eaεily so as not to form an unnatural lever causing a deεtabilizing torque.
Fig. 19 illuεtrateε a fully contoured deεign, but abbreviated along the sides to only essential struc¬ tural εtability and propulsion shoe sole elements as shown in Fig. 21 of United States Patent Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988) combined with the freely articulating structural elements underneath the foot as shown in Fig. 28 of the same patent application. The unifying concept is that, on both the sides and underneath the main load-bearing portions of the shoe sole, only the important structural (i.e. bone) elements of the foot εhould be supported by the shoe sole, if the natural flexibility of the foot is to be paralleled accu- rately in shoe sole flexibility, so that the εhoe sole does not interfere with the foot's natural motion. In a sense, the shoe sole should be composed of the same main structural elements as the foot and they should articu¬ late with each other just as do the main jointε of the foot.
Fig. 19E εhowε the horizontal plane bottom view of the right foot correεponding to the fully contoured design previously described, but abbreviated along the sides to only essential structural support and propulsion elements. Shoe sole material density can be increased in the unabbreviated eεsential elements to compensate for increased preεεure loading there. The eεεential εtruc¬ tural support elements are the base and lateral tuberos¬ ity of the calcaneus 95, the heads of the metatarsals 96, and the baεe of the fifth metatarεal 97 (and the adjoin¬ ing cuboid in some individuals) . They must be supported both underneath and to the outside edge of the foot for stability. The essential propulsion element is the head of the first distal phalange 98. Fig. 19 shows that the naturally contoured stability εideε need not be uεed except in the identified essential areas. Weight savings and flexibility improvements can be made by omitting the non-esεential stability sideε.
The design of the portion of the shoe sole directly underneath the foot shown in Fig. 19 allows for unobstructed natural inversion/eversion motion of the calcaneus by providing maximum shoe sole flexibility particularly between the base of the calcaneus 125 (heel) and the metatarsal heads 126 (forefoot) along an axis 120. An unnatural torsion occurs about that axis if flexibility is inεufficient so that a conventional shoe sole interferes with the inversion/eversion motion by restraining it. The object of the design is to allow the relatively more mobile (in inverεion and everεion) calca¬ neus to articulate freely and independently from the relatively more fixed forefoot instead of the fixed or fused structure or lack of stable structure between the two in conventional designs. In a sense, freely articu¬ lating joints are created in the shoe sole that parallel those of the foot. The design is to remove nearly all of the shoe sole material between the heel and the forefoot, except under one of the previously described essential structural support elements, the base of the fifth meta¬ tarsal 97. An optional support for the main longitudinal arch 121 may also be retained for runners with subεtan- tial foot pronation, although would not be neceεsary for many runners. The forefoot can be subdivided (not shown) into its component essential structural support and propulsion elements, the individual heads of the metatarsal and the heads of the diεtal phalangeε, so that each major articu¬ lating joint set of the foot is paralleled by a freely articulating shoe sole support propulsion element, an anthropomorphic design; various aggregations of the sub¬ division are also possible.
The design in Fig. 19 features an enlarged structural support at the base of the fifth metatarεal in order to include the cuboid, which can alεo come into contact with the ground under arch compression in some individuals. In addition, the design can provide general side support in the heel area, as in Fig. 19E or alterna¬ tively can carefully orient the stability sides in the heel area to the exact positionε of the lateral calcaneal tuberoεity 108 and the main baεe of the calcaneuε 109, as in Fig. 19E' (showing heel area only of the right foot) . Figs. 19A-D show frontal plane cross sections of the left shoe and Fig. 19E shows a bottom view of the right foot, with flexibility axes 120, 122, 111, 112 and 113 indi¬ cated. Fig. 19F showε a sagittal plane cross section showing the structural elements joined by very thin and relatively soft upper midsole layer. Figs. 19G and 19H show similar crosε εectionε with εlightly different designs featuring durable fabric only (slip-laεted εhoe) , or a εtructurally sound arch design, respectively. Fig. 191 shows a side medial view of the shoe sole. Fig. 19J shows a εimple interim or low cost construction for the articulating shoe sole support ele¬ ment 95 for the heel (showing the heel area only of the right foot) ; while it is most critical and effective for the heel support element 95, it can also be used with the other elementε, εuch as the base of the fifth metatarsal 97 and the long arch 121. The heel sole element 95 shown can be a single flexible layer or a lamination of layers. When cut from a flat sheet or molded in the general pat¬ tern shown, the outer edges can be easily bent to follow the contours of the foot, particularly the sides. The shape εhown allowε a flat or εlightly contoured heel element 95 to be attached to a highly contoured εhoe upper or very thin upper sole layer like that shown in Fig. 19F. Thus, a very simple construction technique can yield a highly sophiεticated εhoe εole deεign. The εize of the center section 119 can be small to conform to a fully or nearly fully contoured design or larger to con¬ form to a contoured sides design, where there is a large flattened sole area under the heel. The flexibility is provided by the removed diagonal sections, the exact proportion of size and shape can vary.
Fig. 20 illustrates an expanded explanation of the correct approach for measuring shoe sole thicknesε according to the naturally contoured deεign, as described previously in Figs. 23 and 24 of United States Patent Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988). The tangent described in those figures would be parallel to the ground when the shoe sole iε tilted out sideways, so that measuring shoe sole thicknesε along the perpendicu¬ lar will provide the least distance between the point on the upper shoe sole surface closeεt to the ground and the closest point to it on the lower surface of the shoe sole (assuming no load deformation) .
Fig. 21 shows a non-optimal but interim or low cost approach to shoe sole construction, whereby the mid¬ sole and heel lift 127 are produced conventionally, or nearly so (at least leaving the midsole bottom surface flat, though the sides can be contoured) , while the bot¬ tom or outer sole 128 includes most or all of the special contourε of the new deεign. Not only would that com¬ pletely or mostly limit the εpecial contours to the bot¬ tom sole, which would be molded specially, it would also ease aεεembly, εince two flat surfaces of the bottom of the midsole and the top of the bottom εole could be mated together with leεε difficulty than two contoured sur¬ faces, as would be the caεe otherwiεe. The advantage of thiε approach iε seen in the naturally contoured design example illuεtrated in Fig. 21A, which εhows some con¬ tours on the relatively softer midεole εideε, which are εubject to less wear but benefit from greater traction for stability and ease of deformation, while the rela¬ tively harder contoured bottom sole provides good wear for the load-bearing areas. Fig. 2IB shows in a quadrant side design the concept applied to conventional street shoe heels, which are usually separated from the forefoot by a hollow instep area under the main longitudinal arch. Fig. 21C shows in frontal plane crosε section the concept applied to the quadrant sided or single plane design and indicating in Fig. 2ID in the shaded area 129 of the bot¬ tom sole that portion which should be honeycombed (axis on the horizontal plane) to reduce the density of the relatively hard outer sole to that of the midεole raate- rial to provide for relatively uniform shoe density. Fig. 2IE showε in bottom view the outline of a bottom εole 128 made from flat material which can be conformed topologically to a contoured midsole of either the one or two plane deεignε by limiting the side areas to be mated to the essential support areas discusεed in Fig. 21 of the '667 application; by that method, the contoured mid¬ εole and flat bottom sole surfaces can be made to join satiεfactorily by coinciding cloεely, which would be topologically impoεsible if all of the side areas were retained on the bottom sole.
Figs. 22A-22C, frontal plane cross sections, show an enhancement to the previously described embodi- mentε of the εhoe εole side stability quadrant invention of the '349 Patent. As stated earlier, one major purpose of that design is to allow the shoe sole to pivot easily from εide to εide with the foot 90, thereby following the foot'ε natural inversion and eversion motion; in conven- tional designε shown in Fig. 22a, such foot motion is forced to occur within the shoe upper 21, which resists the motion. The enhancement is to position exactly and stabilize the foot, eεpecially the heel, relative to the preferred embodiment of the εhoe sole; doing so facili- tates the εhoe εole'ε reεponεiveneεε in following the foot's natural motion. Correct positioning is essential to the invention, especially when the very narrow or "hard tisεue" definition of heel width iε uεed. Incor¬ rect or shifting relative position will reduce the inher- ent efficiency and stability of the side quadrant design, by reducing the effective thickness of the quadrant side 26 to less than that of the shoe sole 28b. Aε shown in Fig. 22B and 22C, naturally contoured inner stability εideε 131 hold the pivoting edge 31 of the load-bearing foot εole in the correct poεition for direct contact with the flat upper surface of the conventional shoe sole 22, so that the εhoe εole thickneεε (ε) iε maintained at a constant thickness (s) in the stability quadrant sides 26 when the shoe is everted or inverted, following the theo- retically ideal stability plane 51.
The form of the enhancement is inner shoe sole stability sideε 131 that follow the natural contour of the sides 91 of the heel of the foot 90, thereby cupping the heel of the foot. The inner stability sideε 131 can be located directly on the top surface of the shoe sole and heel contour, or directly under the shoe insole (or integral to it) , or somewhere in between. The inner stability sides are similar in structure to heel cups integrated in insoles currently in common use, but differ because of its material density, which can be relatively firm like the typical mid-sole, not soft like the insole. The difference is that because of their higher relative density, preferably like that of the uppermost midsole, the inner εtability sides function as part of the shoe εole, which provideε εtructural εupport to the foot, not juεt gentle cuεhioning and abraεion protection of a shoe insole. In the broadest sense, though, insoleε εhould be conεidered structurally and functionally as part of the shoe sole, as should any shoe material between foot and ground, like the bottom of the shoe upper in a slip- lasted shoe or the board in a board-lasted shoe.
The inner stability side enhancement is parti- cularly useful in converting exiεting conventional εhoe sole design embodiments 22, as constructed within prior art, to an effective embodiment of the side stability quadrant 26 invention. This feature is important in constructing prototypes and initial production of the invention, as well as an ongoing method of low cost pro¬ duction, since such production would be very close to existing art.
The inner stability sides enhancement is most essential in cupping the sides and back of the heel of the foot and therefore is essential on the upper edge of the heel of the shoe εole 27, but may alεo be extended around all or any portion of the remaining shoe sole upper edge. The size of the inner εtability εides εhould, however, taper down in proportion to any reduc- tion in shoe sole thicknesε in the sagittal plane.
Figs. 23A-23C, frontal plane cross sectionε, illustrate the same inner shoe sole stability sides enhancement as it applies to the previously described embodiments of the naturally contoured sideε '667 appli¬ cation deεign. The enhancement poεitions and stabilizes the foot relative to the shoe sole, and maintains the constant shoe sole thickness (s) of the naturally con- toured εideε 28a design, as shown in Figs. 23B and 23C; Fig. 23A shows a conventional design. The inner shoe sole stability sideε 131 conform to the natural contour of the foot sides 29, which determine the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 for the shoe εole thickneεs (s) . The other features of the enhancement as it applies to the naturally contoured shoe sole sides embodiment 28 are the same as described previouεly under Figε. 22A-22C for the εide εtability quadrant embodiment. It iε clear from comparing Figε. 23C and 22C that the two different approacheε, that with quadrant εides and that with natu¬ rally contoured εideε, can yield εome εimilar resulting shoe sole embodimentε through the uεe of inner εtability εideε 131. In essence, both approaches provide a low cost or interim method of adapting existing conventional "flat sheet" shoe manufacturing to the naturally con¬ toured design described in previous figures.
Figs. 24-34 are Figs. 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 14- 15, reεpectively, from the '478 application.
Figε. 24, 25, and 26 εhow frontal plane cross sectional views of a εhoe sole according to the appli¬ cant's prior inventions based on the theoretically ideal stability plane, taken at about the ankle joint to show the heel εection of the shoe. Figs. 4, 5, 8, and 27-32 show the same view of the applicant's enhancement of that invention. The reference numerals are like those uεed in the prior pending applicationε of the applicant mentioned above and which are incorporated by reference for the sake of completeness of disclosure, if neceεεary. In the figureε, a foot 27 iε poεitioned in a naturally contoured shoe having an upper 21 and a εole 28. The shoe sole nor¬ mally contacts the ground 43 at about the lower central heel portion thereof, as εhown in Fig 4. The concept of the theoretically ideal εtability plane, as developed in the prior applications aε noted, defines the plane 51 in terms of a locus of points determined by the thick¬ ness(eε) of the εole.
Fig. 24 εhows, in a rear cross sectional view, the application of the prior invention showing the inner surface of the shoe sole conforming to the natural con¬ tour of the foot and the thickness of the shoe sole remaining constant in the frontal plane, so that the outer surface coincides with the theoretically ideal sta- bility plane.
Fig. 25 shows a fully contoured shoe sole design of the applicant'ε prior invention that followε the natural contour of all of the foot, the bottom aε well as the sideε, while retaining a conεtant εhoe εole thickneεs in the frontal plane.
The fully contoured εhoe sole assumes that the resulting slightly rounded bottom when unloaded will deform under load and flatten just as the human foot bot¬ tom iε εlightly rounded unloaded but flattenε under load; therefore, εhoe εole material muεt be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot. The design applies particularly to the heel, but to the rest of the shoe sole as well. By providing the closest match to the natural shape of the foot, the fully contoured design allows the foot to function as naturally as possible. Under load, Fig. 2 would deform by flatten¬ ing to look esεentially like Fig. 24. Seen in this light, the naturally contoured side design in Fig. 24 iε a more conventional, conservative deεign that iε a spe- cial case of the more general fully contoured design in Fig. 25, which is the cloεest to the natural form of the foot, but the leaεt conventional. The amount of deforma¬ tion flattening used in the Fig. 24 design, which obvi¬ ously varies under different loads, is not an esεential element of the applicant's invention.
Figs. 24 and 25 both show in frontal plane cross sectionε the eεsential concept underlying this invention, the theoretically ideal stability plane, which is also theoretically ideal for efficient natural motion of all kinds, including running, jogging or walking. Fig. 25 showε the moεt general caεe of the invention, the fully contoured deεign, which conformε to the natural shape of the unloaded foot. For any given individual, the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 is determined, first, by the desired shoe sole thickness(es) in a fron¬ tal plane cross section, and, second, by the natural εhape of the individual'ε foot εurface 29. For the εpecial caεe εhown in Fig. 24, the theoretically ideal εtability plane for any particular individual (or size average of individuals) is deter¬ mined, first, by the given frontal plane cross section shoe sole thickneεε(eε) ; εecond, by the natural εhape of the individual'ε foot; and, third, by the frontal plane croεs section width of the individual's load-bearing footprint 30b, which is defined as the upper surface of the shoe sole that is in physical contact with and sup¬ portε the human foot sole. The theoretically ideal stability plane for the εpecial caεe iε composed conceptually of two parts. Shown in Fig. 24, the first part is a line segment 31b of equal length and parallel to line 30b at a constant dis¬ tance(s) equal to shoe εole thickneεε. Thiε corresponds to a conventional shoe sole directly underneath the human foot, and also corresponds to the flattened portion of the bottom of the load-bearing foot sole 28b. The second part iε the naturally contoured εtability εide outer edge 31a located at each εide of the firεt part, line segment 31b. Each point on the contoured side outer edge 31a is located at a distance which is exactly shoe sole thick¬ ness(es) from the closest point on the contoured side inner edge 30a.
In summary, the theoretically ideal stability plane is the esεence of thiε invention because it is used to determine a geometrically precise bottom contour of the shoe sole based on a top contour that conforms to the contour of the foot. This invention εpecifically claimε the exactly determined geometric relationεhip juεt deεcribed.
It can be stated unequivocally that any shoe sole contour, even of similar contour, that exceeds the theoretically ideal stability plane will restrict natural foot motion, while any leεs than that plane will degrade natural stability, in direct proportion to the amount of the deviation. The theoretical ideal was taken to be that which is closeεt to natural. Fig. 26 illuεtrates in frontal plane cross sec¬ tion another variation of the applicant's prior invention that uses stabilizing quadrantε 26 at the outer edge of a conventional εhoe εole 28b illustrated generally at the reference numeral 28. The stabilizing quadrantε would be abbreviated in actual embodiments.
Fig. 28 showε that the thickneεε can alεo increaεe and then decreaεe; other thickneεs variation εequenceε are alεo poεεible. The variation in side con¬ tour thicknesε in the new invention can be either εymme- trical on both εideε or aεymmetrical, particularly with the medial εide providing more stability than the lateral side, although many other aεymmetrical variations are possible, and the pattern of the right foot can vary from that of the left foot. Figs. 29, 30, 6 and 32 show that similar varia¬ tions in shoe midsole (other portionε of the shoe sole area not shown) density can provide similar but reduced effects to the variations in shoe sole thicknesε deεcribed previouεly in Figs. 4, 5, 27 and 28. The major advantage of this approach is that the structural theore¬ tically ideal stability plane is retained, εo that natu¬ rally optimal stability and efficient motion are retained to the maximum extent posεible.
The formε of dual and tri-denεity midsoles εhown in the figures are extremely common in the current art of running shoes, and any number of denεitieε are theoretically poεεible, although an angled alternation of juεt two denεitieε like that εhown in Fig. 29 provideε continually changing composite density. However, the applicant'ε prior invention did not prefer multi-densi¬ ties in the midsole, since only a uniform density pro¬ vides a neutral εhoe sole design that does not interfere with natural foot and ankle biomechanics in the way that multi-density shoe soles do, which is by providing dif¬ ferent amounts of support to different parts of the foot; it did not, of course, preclude such multi-density mid- soles. In these figures, the density of the sole mater- iai designated by the legend (dl) is firmer than (d) while (d2) is the firmest of the three representative densitieε εhown. In Fig. 29, a dual denεity εole is shown, with (d) having the less firm density.
It should be noted that εhoe soles using a combination both of sole thicknesseε greater than the theoretically ideal εtability plane and of midεole den¬ εitieε variationε like thoεe juεt deεcribed are alεo poεεible but not shown.
In particular, it is anticipated that indivi- duals with overly rigid feet, those with restricted range of motion, and those tending to over-supinate may benefit from the Fig. 33 embodimentε. Even more particularly, it iε expected that the invention will benefit individualε with significant bilateral foot function asymmetry: namely, a tendency toward pronation on one foot and εupi- nation on the other foot. Conεequently, it is anticipated that this embodiment would be used only on the shoe sole of the supinating foot, and on the inεide portion only, poεεibly only a portion thereof. It iε expected that the range less than the theoretically ideal stability plane would be a maximum of about five to ten percent, though a maximum of up to twenty-five percent may be beneficial to some individuals.
Fig. 33A shows an embodiment like Figs. 4 and 28, but with naturally contoured sides less than the theoretically ideal stability plane. Fig. 33B shows an embodiment like the fully contoured design in Figs. 5 and 6, but with a εhoe εole thickness decreasing with increaε- ing distance from the center portion of the sole. Fig. 33C showε an embodiment like the quadrant-sided design of Fig. 31, but with the quadrant sideε increaεingly reduced from the theoretically ideal εtability plane. The lesser-sided design of Fig. 33 would also apply to the Figs. 29, 30, 6 and 32 density variation approach and to the Fig. 8 approach using tread design to approximate density variation.
Fig. 34 A-C show, in crosε sections similar to those in pending U.S. Patent '349, that with the quad¬ rant-sided design of Figs. 26, 31, 32 and 33C that it is possible to have shoe sole sides that are both greater and lesser than the theoretically ideal stability plane in the same shoe. The radiuε of an intermediate shoe sole thicknesε, taken at (S2) at the baεe of the fifth metatarsal in Fig. 34B, is maintained conεtant throughout the quadrant εideε of the shoe sole, including both the heel, Fig. 34C, and the forefoot, Fig. 34A, so that the side thicknesε is less than the theoretically ideal sta- bility plane at the heel and more at the forefoot.
Though poεεible, thiε is not a preferred approach. The same approach can be applied to the naturally contoured sideε or fully contoured deεignε deεcribed in Figs. 24, 25, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 27-30, but it is also not preferred. In addition, is shown in Figs. 34 D-F, in croεε εectionε εimilar to thoεe in pending U.S. application No. 07/239,667, it iε poεsible to have shoe sole sideε that are both greater and lesser than the theoretically ideal stability plane in the same shoe, like Figs. 34A-C, but wherein the side thicknesε (or radiuε) iε neither con¬ stant like Figs 34A-C or varying directly with shoe sole thicknesε, like in the applicant'ε pending applications, but instead varying quite indirectly with shoe εole thickneεε. Aε shown in Figs 34D-F, the shoe sole εide thickness varies from somewhat leεε than εhoe εole thick¬ ness at the heel to somewhat more at the forefoot. Thiε approach, though poεεible, iε again not preferred, and can be applied to the quadrant εided deεign, but is not preferred there either.
Figs. 35-44 are Figs. 1-10 from the '302 appli¬ cation. Fig. 35 shows a perspective view of a shoe, such as a typical athletic shoe specifically for running, according to the prior art, wherein the running shoe 20 includeε an upper portion 21 and a εole 22.
Fig. 36 illuεtrateε, in a cloεe-up croεε εec- tion of a typical εhoe of exiεting art (undeformed by body weight) on the ground 43 when tilted on the bottom outεide edge 23 of the εhoe εole 22, that an inherent stability problem remains in existing designs, even when the abnormal torque producing rigid heel counter and other motion devices are removed, as illustrated in Fig. 5 of pending U.S. application No. 07/400,714, filed on Auguεt 30, 1989, εhown aε Fig 16 in this application. The problem is that the remaining shoe upper 21 (εhown in the thickened and darkened line) , while providing no lever arm extenεion, since it is flexible inεtead of rigid, nonetheleεε createε unnatural deεtabilizing torque on the εhoe εole. The torque is due to the tension force 155a along the top surface of the shoe sole 22 cauεed by a compreεεion force 150 (a compoεite of the force of gravity on the body and a εidewayε motion force) to the εide by the foot 27, due εimply to the εhoe being tilted to the εide, for example. The reεulting destabilizing force actε to pull the shoe sole in rotation around a lever arm 23a that is the width of the shoe sole at the edge. Roughly speaking, the force of the foot on the shoe upper pulls the shoe over on its side when the shoe is tilted sideways. The compresεion force 150 also cre¬ ates a tension force 155b, which iε the mirror image of tension force 155a Fig. 37 shows, in a close-up crosε εection of a naturally contoured design shoe sole 28, described in pending U.S. application No. 07/239,667, filed on Septem¬ ber 2, 1988, (also shown undeformed by body weight) when tilted on the bottom edge, that the same inherent stabil¬ ity problem remains in the naturally contoured shoe sole deεign, though to a reduced degree. The problem iε leεε since the direction of the force vector 155 along the lower surface of the shoe upper 21 is parallel to the ground 43 at the outer sole edge 32 edge, instead of angled toward the ground as in a conventional design like that shown in Fig. 36, so the resulting torque produced by lever arm created by the outer sole edge 32 would be less, and the contoured shoe εole 28 provideε direct structural support when tilted, unlike conventional designs.
Fig. 38 shows (in a rear view) that, in con¬ trast, the barefoot is naturally εtable because, when deformed by body weight and tilted to its natural lateral limit of about 20 degrees, it does not create any desta¬ bilizing torque due to tension force. Even though ten¬ sion paralleling that on the shoe upper is created on the outer surface 29, both bottom and sides, of the bare foot by the compression force of weight-bearing, no destabil¬ izing torque is created because the lower εurface under tension (i.e. the foot's bottom sole, shown in the dark¬ ened line) is reεting directly in contact with the ground. Conεequently, there is no unnatural lever arm artificially created against which to pull. The weight of the body firmly anchors the outer surface of the foot underneath the foot so that even considerable pressure against the outer εurface 29 of the side of the foot results in no destabilizing motion. When the foot is tilted, the supporting εtructureε of the foot, like the calcaneuε, εlide against the side of the strong but flex¬ ible outer surface of the foot and create very subεtan- tial preεsure on that outer surface at the εides of the foot. But that presεure is precisely resisted and bal- anced by tension along the outer surface of the foot, resulting in a stable equilibrium.
Fig. 39 shows, in crosε section of the upright heel deformed by body weight, the principle of the ten- εion stabilized sides of the barefoot applied to the naturally contoured shoe sole design; the same principle can be applied to conventional shoeε, but is not shown. The key change from the existing art of shoes is that the sides of the shoe upper 21 (shown as darkened lines) must wrap around the outside edges 32 of the shoe sole 28, instead of attaching underneath the foot to the upper surface 30 of the shoe sole, as done conventionally. The shoe upper sides can overlap and be attached to either the inner (shown on the left) or outer surface (shown on the right) of the bottom sole, since those sides are not unusually load-bearing, as shown; or the bottom sole, optimally thin and tapering as shown, can extend upward around the outside edges 32 of the shoe sole to overlap and attach to the εhoe upper sides (εhown Fig. 39B) ; their optimal poεition coincideε with the Theoretically Ideal Stability Plane, εo that the tension force on the shoe εideε iε tranεmitted directly all the way down to the bottom shoe, which anchors it on the ground with virtually no intervening artificial lever arm. For shoeε with only one sole layer, the attachment of the shoe upper sideε εhould be at or near the lower or bottom εurface of the εhoe εole.
The deεign shown in Fig. 39 is baεed on a fun- damentally different conception: that the εhoe upper iε integrated into the shoe sole, instead of attached on top of it, and the shoe sole is treated as a natural exten¬ sion of the foot sole, not attached to it separately. The fabric (or other flexible material, like leather) of the shoe uppers would preferably be non- stretch or relatively so, εo aε not to be deformed exces¬ sively by the tension place upon its εideε when com¬ presεed aε the foot and εhoe tilt. The fabric can be reinforced in areaε of particularly high tenεion, like the eεεential εtructural εupport and propulεion elementε defined in the applicant's earlier applications (the baεe and lateral tuberoεity of the calcaneus, the base of the fifth metatarεal, the headε of the metatarsals, and the firεt distal phalange; the reinforcement can take many forms, such as like that of corners of the jib sail of a racing sailboat or more simple straps. As closely aε possible, it should have the same performance character- isticε aε the heavily callouεed εkin of the sole of an habitually bare foot. The relative density of the shoe sole is preferred as indicated in Fig. 9 of pending U.S. application No. 07/400,714, filed on August 30, 1989, with the εofteεt density nearest the foot sole, so that the conforming sides of the shoe sole do not provide a rigid destabilizing lever arm.
The change from exiεting art of the tension stabilized sideε εhown in Fig. 39 iε that the εhoe upper iε directly integrated functionally with the shoe sole, instead of simply being attached on top of it. The advantage of the tension stabilized sideε design is that it provides natural stability as close to that of the barefoot as posεible, and does so economically, with the minimum εhoe εole side width posεible. The result is a shoe sole that is naturally stabilized in the εame way that the barefoot iε εtabil- ized, as seen in Fig. 40, which shows a close-up cross section of a naturally contoured design shoe εole 28 (undeformed by body weight) when tilted to the edge. The same destabilizing force against the side of the shoe shown in Fig. 36 is now stably resisted by offsetting tension in the surface of the shoe upper 21 extended down the side of the shoe sole so that it iε anchored by the weight of the body when the shoe and foot are tilted. In order to avoid creating unnatural torque on the shoe sole, the shoe uppers may be joined or bonded only to the bottom sole, not the midsole, so that pres¬ sure shown on the side of the shoe upper produces side tension only and not the deεtabilizing torque from pull- ing εimilar to that deεcribed in Fig. 36. However, to avoid unnatural torque, the upper areaε 147 of the shoe midsole, which forms a sharp corner, εhould be compoεed of relatively soft midsole material; in this caεe, bond- ing the εhoe upperε to the midεole would not create very much deεtabilizing torque. The bottom εole iε preferably thin, at least on the stability sides, so that its attachment overlap with the shoe upper sides coincide as cloεe as possible to the Theoretically Ideal Stability Plane, so that force is transmitted on the outer shoe sole surface to the ground.
In summary, the Fig. 39 design is for a shoe construction, including: a shoe upper that is composed of material that is flexible and relatively inelastic at least where the shoe upper contacts the areas of the structural bone elements of the human foot, and a shoe sole that has relatively flexible sideε; and at least a portion of the sideε of the shoe upper being attached directly to the bottom εole, while enveloping on the outside the other sole portions of said shoe sole. This construction can either be applied to convention shoe sole structureε or to the applicant'ε prior εhoe εole inventionε, εuch aε the naturally contoured shoe sole conforming to the theoretically ideal stability plane. Fig. 41 shows, in crosε εection at the heel, the tenεion stabilized sideε concept applied to naturally contoured deεign shoe sole when the εhoe and foot are tilted out fully and naturally deformed by body weight (although conεtant εhoe sole thickness is shown unde¬ formed) . The figure showε that the εhape and εtability function of the εhoe εole and εhoe upperε mirror almoεt exactly that of the human foot.
Figs. 42A-42D show the natural cushioning of the human barefoot, in crosε sections at the heel. Fig. 42A showε the bare heel upright and unloaded, with little preεεure on the εubcalcaneal fat pad 158, which iε evenly diεtributed between the calcaneuε 159, which iε the heel bone, and the bottom εole 160 of the foot. Fig. 42B εhows the bare heel upright but under the moderate preεεure of full body weight. The compreε¬ εion of the calcaneus against the subcalcaneal fat pad produces evenly balanced pressure within the subcalcaneal fat pad because it is contained and εurrounded by a rela¬ tively unεtretchable fibrouε capsule, the bottom sole of the foot. Underneath the foot, where the bottom sole is in direct contact with the ground, the pressure caused by the calcaneus on the compreεεed εubcalcaneal fat pad iε transmitted directly to the ground. Simultaneously, sub- εtantial tenεion is created on the sideε of the bottom εole of the foot becauεe of the surrounding relatively tough fibrous capsule. That combination of bottom pres- εure and side tension is the foot's natural shock absorp¬ tion syεtem for εupport structures like the calcaneus and the other bones of the foot that come in contact with the ground.
Of equal functional importance is that lower surface 167 of those support structures of the foot like the calcaneus and other bones make firm contact with the upper surface 168 of the foot's bottom sole underneath, with relatively little uncompresεed fat pad intervening. In effect, the εupport εtructures of the foot land on the ground and are firmly εupported; they are not εuspended on top of springy material in a buoyant manner analogous to a water bed or pneumatic tire, like the existing pro¬ prietary shoe sole cushioning syεtemε like Nike Air or Aεicε Gel. This simultaneouεly firm and yet cuεhioned support provided by the foot sole must have a signifi¬ cantly beneficial impact on energy efficiency, alεo called energy return, and iε not paralleled by exiεting εhoe designs to provide cushioning, all of which provide εhock abεorption cuεhioning during the landing and sup- port phaseε of locomotion at the expense of firm support during the take-off phaεe.
The incredible and unique feature of the foot's natural system is that, once the calcaneuε is in fairly direct contact with the bottom sole and therefore provid- ing firm εupport and εtability, increased presεure pro¬ duceε a more rigid fibrouε capεule that protects the calcaneus and greater tension at the sideε to abεorb shock. So, in a sense, even when the foot's suεpenεion εyεtem would seem in a conventional way to have bottomed out under normal body weight presεure, it continues to react with a mechanism to protect and cushion the foot even under very much more extreme presεure. Thiε iε εeen in Fig. 42C, which εhowε the human heel under the heavy pressure of roughly three times body weight force of landing during routine running. Thiε can be eaεily veri¬ fied: when one εtands barefoot on a hard floor, the heel feels very firmly supported and yet can be lifted and virtually slammed onto the floor with little increase in the feeling of firmness; the heel simply becomes harder as the pressure increases.
In addition, it should be noted that this syε¬ tem allows the relatively narrow base of the calcaneus to pivot from side to εide freely in normal pronation/ supination motion, without any obstructing torεion on it, deεpite the very much greater width of compreεsed foot sole providing protection and cushioning; this is cru¬ cially important in maintaining natural alignment of joints above the ankle joint such as the knee, hip and back, particularly in the horizontal plane, so that the entire body is properly adjusted to absorb shock cor¬ rectly. In contrast, existing shoe sole designε, which are generally relatively wide to provide εtability, pro- duce unnatural frontal plane torεion on the calcaneuε, reεtricting itε natural motion, and causing misalignment of the joints operating above it, resulting in the over¬ use injuries unuεually common with such shoeε. Instead of flexible sideε that harden under tenεion cauεed by preεεure like that of the foot, exiεting shoe sole designε are forced by lack of other alternativeε to uεe relatively rigid sides in an attempt to provide suffi¬ cient stability to offεet the otherwiεe uncontrollable buoyancy and lack of firm εupport of air or gel cuεhions. Fig. 42D shows the barefoot deformed under full body weight and tilted laterally to the roughly 20 degree limit of normal range. Again it is clear that the natu¬ ral system provides both firm lateral support and stabil- ity by providing relatively direct contact with the ground, while at the same time providing a cushioning mechanism through side tension and subcalcaneal fat pad presεure. Figε 43A-D show Figs. 9B-D of the '302 applica¬ tion, in addition to Fig. 9 of thiε application.
While the Fig. 9 and Fig. 43 design copies in a simplified way the macro structure of the foot, Figs. 44 [10] A-C focus on a more on the exact detail of the natu- rai structures, including at the micro level. Figs. 44A and 44C are perspective viewε of croεε sections of the human heel showing the matrix of elastic fibrous connec¬ tive tisεue arranged into chamberε 164 holding cloεely packed fat cellε; the chambers are structured as whorls radiating out from the calcaneus. These fibrouε-tiεεue εtrandε are firmly attached to the underεurface of the calcaneus and extend to the subcutaneous tissues. They are usually in the form of the letter U, with the open end of the U pointing toward the calcaneuε. Aε the moεt natural, an approximation of thiε εpecific chamber εtructure would appear to be the moεt optimal aε an accurate model for the εtructure of the εhoe εole cuεhioning compartmentε 161, at least in an ultimate sense, although the complicated nature of the design will require some time to overcome exact deεign and construction difficulties; however, the description of the εtructure of calcaneal padding provided by Erich Blechschmidt in Foot and Ankle, March, 1982, (translated from the original 1933 article in German) is so detailed and comprehensive that copying the same structure as a model in shoe sole design iε not difficult technically, once the crucial connection is made that such copying of this natural syεtem is necesεary to overcome inherent weaknesses in the design of existing shoeε. Other arrangementε and orientationε of the whorlε are poεsible, but would probably be lesε optimal.
Pursuing this nearly exact deεign analogy, the lower εurface 165 of the upper midεole 147 would corre- spond to the outer surface 167 of the calcaneus 159 and would be the origin of the U shaped whorl chambers 164 noted above.
Fig. 44B showε a close-up of the interior structure of the large chambers shown in Fig. 44A and 44C. It is clear from the fine interior structure and compreεsion characteristics of the mini-chambers 165 that those directly under the calcaneuε become very hard quite eaεily, due to the high local preεsure on them and the limited degree of their elasticity, so they are able to provide very firm support to the calcaneus or other bones of the foot sole; by being fairly inelastic, the compreε¬ sion forces on those compartmentε are dissipated to other areas of the network of fat pads under any given support structure of the foot, like the calcaneus. Consequently, if a cushioning compartment 161, such as the compartment under the heel shown in Figε. 9 & 43, iε εubdivided into εmaller chambers, like those shown in Fig. 44, then actual contact between the upper surface 165 and the lower surface 166 would no longer be required to provide firm support, so long as those compartments and the preε- εure-tranεmitting medium contained in them have material characteristics εimilar to thoεe of the foot, as described above; the use of gas may not be εatisfactory in this approach, since its compressibility may not allow adequate firmness.
In summary, the Fig. 44 design showε a εhoe conεtruction including: a shoe sole with a compartments under the structural elements of the human foot, includ- ing at least the heel; the compartments containing a pressure-transmitting medium like liquid, gas, or gel; the compartments having a whorled structure like that of the fat pads of the human foot sole;load-bearing preεεure being tranεmitted progreεεively at leaεt in part to the relatively inelaεtic εides, top and bottom of the εhoe sole compartments, producing tension therein; the elas¬ ticity of the material of the compartmentε and the preε- εure-tranεmitting medium are such that normal weight- bearing loads produce sufficient tension within the structure of the compartments to provide adequate struc¬ tural rigidity to allow firm natural support to the foot structural elements, like that provided the barefoot by its fat pads. That shoe sole construction can have shoe sole compartments that are subdivided into micro chambers like those of the fat pads of the foot sole.
Since the bare foot that is never shod is pro¬ tected by very hard callouεes (called a "seri boot") which the shod foot lacks, it seems reasonable to infer that natural protection and shock absorption system of the εhod foot is adversely affected by its unnaturally undeveloped fibrous capsules (surrounding the subcalca¬ neal and other fat padε under foot bone εupport struc- tures) . A εolution would be to produce a εhoe intended for uεe without socks (ie with smooth surfaces above the foot bottom sole) that uses insoleε that coincide with the foot bottom sole, including its sides. The upper surface of those insoles, which would be in contact with the bottom εole of the foot (and its sides) , would be coarse enough to stimulate the production of natural barefoot callouεeε. The inεoleε would be removable and available in different uniform gradeε of coarseness, as iε sandpaper, so that the user can progresε from finer gradeε to coarser grades as hiε foot εoleε toughen with use.
Similarly, sockε could be produced to εerve the same function, with the area of the sock that corresponds to the foot bottom sole (and sideε of the bottom εole) made of a material coarεe enough to εtimulate the produc¬ tion of callouεeε on the bottom sole of the foot, with different grades of coarseness available, from fine to coarse, corresponding to feet from εoft to naturally tough. Uεing a tube εock design with uniform coarseneεε, rather than conventional εock design asεumed above, would allow the user to rotate the sock on his foot to elimi¬ nate any "hot εpot" irritation points that might develop. Also, εince the toeε are moεt prone to bliεtermg and the heel is most important in shock absorption, the toe area of the sock could be relatively less abrasive than the heel area.
The following Figureε are all new with thiε continuation-in-part application.
Fig. 45 iε new in the continuation-in-part application, but iε similar to Fig. 4 from the appli¬ cant's copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478, filed October 3, 1989, and described above. Fig. 45A illustrateε, in frontal or tranεverεe plane croεs section in the heel area, the applicant's new invention of shoe sole side thickness increasing beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane to increase stability somewhat beyond its natural level. The unavoidable trade-off resulting is that natural motion would be restricted somewhat and the weight of the shoe sole would increase somewhat. For purpoεes of illustration, the right εide of Fig. 45A εhowε roughly a 50 percent thickneεε increaεe over the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 and the left εide shows roughly a 100 percent increase.
Fig. 45B showε the same modificationε to a forefoot εection of the εhoe sole, where such extreme thickness variations are considered more practical and effective. Fig. 45 showε a εituation wherein the thickneεε of the sole at each of the opposed sides is thicker at the portions of the sole 31a by a thickness which gradu¬ ally varies continuously from a thickness (s) through a thickness (s+sl) , to a thicknesε (ε+s2) . These designs recognize that lifetime use of exiεting shoes, the design of which has an inherent flaw that continually disrupts natural human biomechanics, has produced thereby actual structural changeε in a human foot and ankle to an extent that muεt be compenεated for. Specifically, one of the moεt common of the abnormal effectε of the inherent existing flaw is a weakening of the long arch of the foot, increasing pronation. These designs therefore modify the applicant's preceding designε to provide greater than natural εtability and εhould be particularly uεeful to individualε, generally with low archeε, prone to pronate exceεsively, and could be used only on the medial side. Similarly, individuals with high arches and a tendency to over supinate and lateral ankle sprains would also benefit, and the design could be used only on the lateral side. A shoe for the general population that compenεates for both weaknesses in the same shoe would incorporate the enhanced stability of the design compensation on both sides.
The new design in Fig. 45 (like Figs. 1 and 2 of the '478 application) allows the shoe sole to deform naturally closely paralleling the natural deformation of the barefoot under load; in addition, shoe sole material must be of such composition as to allow the natural deformation following that of the foot.
The new designs retain the esεential novel aεpect of the earlier designs; namely, contouring the shape of the shoe sole to the εhape of the human foot. The difference iε that the shoe sole thicknesε in the frontal plane is allowed to vary rather than remain uni¬ formly constant. More specifically, Fig. 45 (and Figs. 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the '478 application) show, in frontal plane crosε εectionε at the heel, that the εhoe sole thickness can increase beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane 51, in order to provide greater than natural stability. Such variations (and the following variations) can be conεistent through all frontal plane crosε sections, so that there are proportionately equal increases to the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 from the front of the shoe sole to the back, or that the thickneεε can vary, preferably continuously, from one frontal plane to the next.
The exact amount of the increase in shoe sole thickness beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane is to be determined empirically. Ideally, right and left shoe soleε would be cuεtom designed for each individual based on an biomechanical analysis of the extent of his or her foot and ankle diεfunction in order to provide an optimal individual correction. If epidemiological studies indicate general corrective patterns for εpecific categorieε of individualε or the population aε a whole, then mass-produced corrective shoeε with εoleε incorpo¬ rating contoured sides exceeding the theoretically ideal stability plane would be posεible.
Research in the a newly developing scientific field, theoretical human anatomy, indicates unexpected reεultε that the extent of human anatomical εtructural deformity due to the adverεe biomechanical performance of exiεting footwear is significantly more εubεtantial than might be expected and extendε to εkeletal, muεcular, and other human εtructureε beyond the foot and ankle joint. It appearε that knee, hip, and lower back are directly affected, with the entire εpinal column thuε also affected, and therefore indeed most of the rest of the human body affected as well.
As a conεequence of careful review of the implications for shoe sole design based on this surpris¬ ing discovery, masε-produced corrective εhoeε for the general population, in some caseε, would require unex¬ pectedly the uεe of contoured εide portion thickneεεes exceeding the theoretically ideal stability plane by an amount as much as 26 percent to 50 percent, preferably at leaεt in that part of the contoured εide which becomes load-bearing under a wearer's body weight during the full range of foot inversion and eversion, which is εidewayε or lateral foot motion. It iε alεo apparent that εome more specific groups or individuals with more εevere disfunction could have an empirically demonstrated need for greater corrective thicknesεeε of the contoured εide portion on the order of 51 to 100 percent more than the theoretically ideal εtability plane, again, preferably at leaεt in that part of the contoured εide which becomeε wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inversion and eversion, which iε εideways or lateral foot motion. The optimal contour for the increased con¬ toured side thickness may also be determined empirically. In addition, these extreme modifications of the theoretically ideal stability plane result in shoe sole embodiments with better biomechanical performance in terms of stability and freedom of motion, and comfort, than existing shoes, even for individual wearers with completely normal anatomical structure.
As described in the earlier '478 Application, in its simplest conceptual form, the applicant's Fig. 4 and this new Fig. 45 invention are the structure of a conventional shoe sole that has been modified by having itε εideε bent up εo that their inner surface conforms to a shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sideε conforming to the ground by paralleling it, aε iε conventional) ; thiε con¬ cept iε like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 application. For the applicant'ε fully con¬ toured deεign deεcribed in Fig. 15 of the '667 applica- tion, the entire εhoe sole — including both the sideε and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot εole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 45.
This theoretical or conceptual bending up must be accomplished in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering distortion or deformation that would neces¬ εarily occur if εuch a conventional εhoe εole were actu- ally bent up εimultaneouεly along all of itε the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe εole material, such as injection molding manufacturing of the shoe sole, would be required for optimal resultε and therefore iε prefer- able.
It iε critical to the novelty of this funda¬ mental concept that all layers of the shoe sole in Fig. 45 are bent up around the foot sole. A small number of both street and athletic shoe soles that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom soles, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickness of the entire shoe sole, are wrapped up around portions of the wearers' foot soles; the midsole and heel lift (or heel) of such shoe soles, constituting over half of the thickness of the entire shoe sole, remains flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearerε' feet. (At the other extreme, some shoeε in the exiεting art have flat midsoles and bottom εoleε, but have inεoleε that conform to the wearer's foot sole.)
Consequently, in existing contoured shoe soles, the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por- tions, including every layer or portion, is much lesε than the total thickneεs of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereaε in the applicant'ε '478 εhoe εole invention the εhoe εole thickneεε of the contoured side portions are at least similar to the thickneεε of the εole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickneεε variation of up to 25 percent, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections.
New Fig. 45 of thiε continuation-in-part appli¬ cation explicitly defineε thoεe thickness variations, as measured in frontal or transverse plane crosε sections, of the applicant's εhoe soles from 26 percent up to 50 percent, which diεtinguiεheε over all known prior art.
In addition, for εhoe sole thickness deviating outwardly in a constructive way from the theoretically ideal stability plane, the shoe sole thickness variation of the applicant's shoe soleε iε increaεed in thiε appli¬ cation from 51 percent to 100 percent, aε meaεured in frontal or tranεverεe plane croεε εectionε.
The Fig. 45 invention, and all previous and following figures included in this application, can be uεed at any one, or combination including all, of the eεεential structural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Those elements are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the heads of the metatarsals, and the baεe of the fifth metatarεal, and the head of the first distal phalange, respectively. Of the metatarsal heads, only the first and fifth metatarsal heads are proximate to the contoured shoe sole sides.
This major and conspicuous structural differ¬ ence between the applicant's underlying concept and the existing shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore- mentioned similar thickness of the applicant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, as demonstrated when the foot iε unεhod and tilted out laterally in inverεion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a εimilar demonεtration in a con¬ ventional εhoe εole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sideε of the applicant'ε εhoe sole inven¬ tion extend sufficiently far up the sideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through¬ out its normal range of sidewayε pronation and εupination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco¬ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand¬ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when said foot iε tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in con- traεt to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above. The sideε of the applicant'ε shoe εole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact thick- nesε of the shoe sole sideε and their specific contour will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysiε to determine thoεe combinationε that beεt provide the barefoot stability described above.
For the Fig. 45 shoe sole invention, the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo- retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe εole weight and bulk required to provide εaid εtability; the amount of εaid coplanar contoured sides that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe iε intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said εhoe iε intended. In general, the applicant'ε preferred εhoe sole embodiments include the εtructural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe εole embodimentε are εufficiently firm to provide the wearer'ε foot with the εtructural support necesεary to maintain normal pronation and εupination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft¬ ness of many of the shoe sole materials used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA, the applicant has previously shown heel lifts with constant frontal or transverse plane thickness, since it is ori¬ ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other shoe sole thicknesε variationε in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be loca¬ ted at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 45 design. For example, the heel wedge can be located per¬ pendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe sole thicknesε in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, inεtead of the frontal plane.
In addition, any of the above deεcribed thick¬ ness variations from a theoretically ideal stability plane can be used together with any of the below described density or bottom sole design variations. All portions of the shoe sole are included in thickness and density measurement, including the sockliner or insole, the midsole (including heel lift or other thicknesε vari- ation measured in the sagittal plane) and bottom or outer sole.
The above described thickness of Fig. 45 and below described thickness and density variations apply to the load-bearing portionε of the contoured εideε of the applicant'ε shoe sole inventions, the εide portion being identified in Fig. 4 of the '819 Patent. Thickneεε and density variationε deεcribed above are meaεured along the contoured εide portion. The εide portion of the fully contoured deεign introduced in the '819 Patent in Fig. 15 cannot be defined as explicitly, since the bottom portion is contoured like the sideε, but εhould be measured by estimating the equivalent Fig. 4 figure; generally, like Figs. 14 and Fig. 15 of the '819 Patent, assuming the flattened sole portion shown in Fig. 14 correεpondε to a load-bearing equivalent of Fig. 15, so that the contoured sides of Figs. 14 and Fig. 15 are essentially the same. Alternately, the thickness and density varia¬ tions described above can be measured from the center of the essential structural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Those elements are the base and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the headε of the metatarεals, and the base of the fifth metatarsal, and the head of the first diεtal phalange, respectively. Of the metatarsal heads, only the first and fifth metatarsal heads are used for such measurement, since only those two are located on lateral portions of the foot and thus proximate to contoured stability sideε of the applicant'ε εhoe sole.
Fig. 46 is similar to Fig. 5 in the applicant's copending U.S. Patent Application No. 07/416,478, but including the εhoe sole thicknesε variations as described in Fig. 45 above. Fig. 46 shows, in frontal or trans- verse plane cross section in the heel area, a variation of the enhanced fully contoured design wherein the shoe sole begins to thicken beyond the theoretically ideal stability plane 51 at the contoured sides portion, pref¬ erably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inverεion and eversion, which is sidewayε or lateral foot motion. For purposes of illustration, the right side of Fig. 46 showε roughly a 50 percent thick¬ neεε increaεe over the theoretically ideal εtability plane 51 and the left εide shows roughly a 100 percent increase.
Fig. 47 iε εimilar to Fig. 6 of the parent '598 application, which iε Fig. 10 in the applicant's copend¬ ing '478 Application and showε, in frontal or tranεverεe plane cross section in the heel area, that εimilar varia¬ tions in shoe midsole (other portions of the shoe sole area not shown) denεity can provide εimilar but reduced effectε to the variationε in εhoe εole thickneεε deεcribed previously in Figs. 4 and 5. The major advan- tage of this approach is that the structural theoreti¬ cally ideal εtability plane iε retained, so that natu¬ rally optimal stability and efficient motion are retained to the maximum extent possible. The more extreme con- structive density variations of Fig. 47 are, aε moεt typically meaεured in durometerε on a Shore A εcale, to include from 26 percent to 50 percent and from 51 percent up to 200 percent. The denεity variations are located preferably at least in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load-bearing during the full range of inversion and eversion, which is side¬ ways or lateral foot motion.
The '478 Application showed midsole only, εince that iε where material denεity variation haε historically been most common. Density variations can and do, of course, also occur in other layers of the shoe sole, such as the bottom sole and the inner εole, and can occur in any combination and in symmetrical or asymmetrical pat- terns between layers or between frontal or transverse plane crosε sections.
The major and conspicuous structural difference between the applicant'ε underlying concept and the exiεt¬ ing εhoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dramatic functional difference between the two: the aforementioned similar thickness of the applicant's shoe εole invention maintainε intact the firm lateral εtability of the wearer'ε foot, as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a εimilar demonεtration in a conventional εhoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend εuf¬ ficiently far up the εideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's εhoe εole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through- out itε normal range of εidewayε pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaseε of loco¬ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is εtand- ing, walking, jogging and running, even when εaid foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contraεt to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art deεcribed above. The εideε of the applicant's εhoe εole invention extend εufficiently far up the εides of the wearer's foot εole to maintain the natural εtability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact material density of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine those combinations that best provide the bare¬ foot εtability deεcribed above.
For the Fig. 47 εhoe εole invention, the amount of any εhoe εole εide portionε coplanar with the theo- retically ideal εtability plane is determined by the degree of shoe sole stability desired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of εaid coplanar contoured εideε that iε provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inverεion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or excessive pronator — for which said shoe iε intended. In general, the applicant'ε preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer'ε foot εole aε if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanicε created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the εame time, the applicant'ε preferred εhoe εole embodimentε are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necessary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contraεt, the exceεεive εoft- ness of many of the shoe εole materialε used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination. As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA, the applicant has previouεly shown heel lifts with conεtant frontal or tranεverse plane thickneεε, since it is ori¬ ented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other εhoe sole thickness variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be loca¬ ted at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 4 design.
For example, the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which iε located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degreeε medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group teεting; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant's theoretically ideal stability plane concept would teach that such a heel wedge orientation would require constant shoe εole thickneεs in a vertical plane perpendicular to the choεen εubtalar joint axiε, inεtead of the frontal plane.
Fig. 48 iε εimilar to Fig. 7 of the parent '598 application, but with more the extreme thickneεs varia- tion similar to Fig. 45 above. Fig. 48 is like Fig. 7, which is Fig. 14B of the applicant's '478 Application and εhowε, in frontal or transverse plane cross sectionε in the heel area, embodimentε like those in Fig. 4 through 6 but wherein a portion of the shoe sole thicknesε iε decreaεed to less than the theoretically ideal stability plane, the amount of the thicknesε variation aε defined for Fig. 45 above, except that the moεt extreme maximum inwardly variation iε 41 to 50 percent, and the more typical maximum inwardly thickneεε variation would be 26 to 40 percent, preferably at leaεt in that part of the contoured side which becomes wearer's body weight load- bearing during the full range of inversion and eversion, which is sidewayε or lateral foot motion. For purposeε - Ill -
of illustration, the right side of Fig. 48 shows a thick¬ ness reduction of approximately 40 percent and the left side a reduction of approximately 50 percent.
It is anticipated that some individuals with foot and ankle biomechanics that have been degraded by existing shoes may benefit from such embodiments, which would provide less than natural stability but greater freedom and motion, and lesε shoe sole weight and bulk. Fig. 7 showε a embodiment like the fully contoured design in Fig. 5, but with a show sole thicknesε decreaεing with increaεing diεtance from the center portion of the εole.
Fig. 49 iε εimilar to Fig. 8 of the parent '598 application which was Fig. 13 of the '478 Application and showε, in frontal or transverse plane cross section, a bottom εole tread design that provideε about the εame overall εhoe εole denεity variation aε that provided in Fig. 6 by midsole density variation. The leεs supporting tread there is under any particular portion of the shoe sole, the less effective overall shoe density there is, since the midεole above that portion will deform more easily than if it were fully supported. Fig. 49 shows more extreme shoe sole tread design, roughly equivalent to the structural changes in shoe sole thickneεε and/or denεity deεcribed in Figε. 45-48 above. Fig. 49, like Fig. 8 from the '478, iε illus¬ trative of the applicant's point that bottom sole tread patterns, just like midsole or bottom sole or inner sole density, directly affect the actual structural εupport the foot receiveε from the shoe sole. Not shown, but a typical example in the real world, is the popular "center of pressure" tread pattern, which is like a backward horseεhoe attached to the heel that leaveε the heel area directly under the calcaneuε unεupported by tread, so that all of the weight bearing load in the heel area is transmitted to outside edge treadε. Variationε of thiε pattern are extremely common in athletic εhoes and are nearly universal in running εhoeε, of which the 1991 Nike 180 model and the Avia "cantilever" εeries are examples. Like the applicant's '478 shoe sole invention, the Fig. 49 invention can, therefore, utilize bottom sole tread patterns like any these common exampleε, together or even in the abεence of any other εhoe εole thickneεs or density variation, to achieve an effective thickness greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane, in order to achieve greater stability than the shoe sole would otherwiεe provide, aε diεcuεεed earlier under Figε. 4-6. Since εhoe bottom or outer εole tread patternε can be fairly irregular and/or complex and can thus make difficult the measurement of the outer load-bearing sur¬ face of the shoe sole. Consequently, thicknesε varia¬ tions in small portions of the shoe sole that will deform or compress without significant overall resiεtance under a wearer's body weight load to the thicknesε of the over¬ all load-bearing plane of the εhoe out εole εhould be ignored during meaεurement, whether εuch eaεy deformation is made possible by very high point presεure or by the use of relatively compressible outsole (or underlying midsole) materials.
Portions of the outsole bottom surface composed of materials (or made of a delicate structure, much like the small raised markers on new tire treads to prove the tire is brand new and unuεed) that wear relatively quickly, so that thicknesε variationε that exist when the shoe εole is new and unused, but disappear quickly in use, should also be ignored when measuring shoe sole thicknesε in frontal or tranεverse plane cross sections. Similarly, midsole thicknesε variations of unuεed εhoe εoleε due to the uεe of materials or structureε that com¬ pact or expand quickly after uεe εhould alεo be ignore when meaεuring εhoe sole thicknesε in frontal or trans¬ verse plane crosε εectionε. The applicant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stability of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's shoe sole inven¬ tion maintains the natural stability and natural, unin¬ terrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare through¬ out its normal range of sidewayε pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of loco¬ motion of the wearer, including when the wearer is stand¬ ing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above. The sides of the applicant's shoe εole invention extend εufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer,ε foot when bare. The exact thickness and material density of the bottom εole tread, aε well aε the εhoe sole sides and their specific contour, will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stability described above.
Fig. 50 is εimilar to Fig. 10, which waε new with the '598 application and which was a combination of the shoe sole structure concepts of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; it combines the custom fit design with the contoured sides greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane. It would apply as well to the Fig 7 design with contoured sideε leεε than the theoretically ideal εtability plane, but that combination iε not shown. It would also apply to the Fig. 8 deεign, which showε one of a typical bottom εole tread deεignε, but that combination is also not shown.
In this continuation-in-part application, the use of this invention with otherwise conventional shoeε with a side sole portion of any thickness, including contoured sideε with uniform or any other thickness vari¬ ation or density variation, including bottom sole tread variation, especially including those defined above and below by the applicant, is further clarified. For pur¬ poseε of illuεtration, the right εide of Fig. 50 shows a shoe sole thicknesε increase variation of nearly 50 per¬ cent, while the left side showε a thickneεs reduction of about over 60 percent. While the Fig. 3 cuεtom fit invention is novel for shoe sole structures as defined by the theoretically ideal stability plane, which specifieε conεtant shoe sole thickness in frontal or transverse plane, the Fig. 3 custom fit invention is also novel for εhoe sole struc- tures with sides that exceed the theoretically ideal stability plane: that is, a shoe sole with thickness greater in the sideε than underneath the foot. It would also be novel for shoe sole structureε with sides that are less than the theoretically ideal stability plane, within the parameters defined in the '714 application. And it would be novel for a shoe sole εtructure that provideε stability like the barefoot, as described in Figs. 1 and 2 of the '714 application.
In its simplest conceptual form, the appli- cant's invention is the structure of a conventional shoe sole that haε been modified by having itε εides bent up εo that their inner εurface conforms to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer (instead of the shoe sole sideε conforming to the ground by parallel¬ ing it, as is conventional) ; this concept is like that described in Fig. 3 of the applicant's 07/239,667 appli¬ cation. For the applicant'ε fully contoured deεign described in Fig. 15 of the '667 Application, the entire shoe εole — including both the εides and the portion directly underneath the foot — is bent up to conform to a shape nearly identical but slightly smaller than the contoured shape of the unloaded foot εole of the wearer, rather than the partially flattened load-bearing foot sole shown in Fig. 3.
This theoretical or conceptual bending up must be accomplished in practical manufacturing without any of the puckering diεtortion or deformation that would neces¬ sarily occur if such a conventional εhoe εole were actu¬ ally bent up εimultaneouεly along all of its the sides; consequently, manufacturing techniques that do not require any bending up of shoe sole material, such as injection molding manufacturing of the shoe sole, would be required for optimal resultε and therefore is prefer¬ able.
It is critical to the novelty of this fundamen¬ tal concept that all layers of the shoe sole are bent up around the foot sole. A small number of both street and athletic shoe soles that are commercially available are naturally contoured to a limited extent in that only their bottom soleε, which are about one quarter to one third of the total thickness of the entire shoe sole, are wrapped up around portions of the wearers' foot soleε; the midεole and heel lift (or heel) of εuch εhoe εoleε, conεtituting over half of the thickneεε of the entire εhoe εole, remainε flat, conforming to the ground rather than the wearers' feet. (At the other extreme, some shoeε in the exiεting art have flat midεoleε and bottom soles, but have insoles that conform to the wearer's foot sole.)
Consequently, in existing contoured shoe soles, the total shoe sole thickness of the contoured side por- tions, including every layer or portion, is much lesε than the total thickneεs of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, whereas in the applicant's prior shoe sole inventions the shoe εole thickneεs of the con¬ toured side portions are at least similar to the thick- ness of the sole portion directly underneath the foot, meaning a thickneεε variation of up to either 50 percent or 100 percent or regardless of contoured side thicknesε so long as side of some thickneεs conforms or is at least complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole when the shoe sole is on the wearer's foot sole, as meaεured in frontal or tranεverse plane crosε sections.
This major and conspicuouε structural differ- ence between the applicant's underlying concept and the existing shoe sole art is paralleled by a similarly dra¬ matic functional difference between the two: the afore¬ mentioned similar thickness of the applicant's shoe sole invention maintains intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that stability as demonstrated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar dem¬ onstration in a conventional shoe sole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sideε of the applicant'ε shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sideε of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stabil¬ ity of the wearer's foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant's invention main- tains the natural stability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout its normal range of sidewayε pronation and εupination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaεeε of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot iε tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contraεt to unsta¬ ble and inflexible conventional shoe soles, including the partially contoured existing art described above. The sides of the applicant's shoe sole invention extend suf- ficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact thickneεε and material denεity of the shoe sole sides and their spe¬ cific contour will be determined empirically for indi- viduals and groupε uεing εtandard biomechanical tech- niqueε of gait analyεiε to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stability described above. For the Fig. 50 εhoe εole invention, the amount of any εhoe εole εide portionε coplanar with the theo¬ retically ideal εtability plane iε determined by the degree of shoe sole εtability deεired and the εhoe εole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sides that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or as exceεsive pronator — for which said shoe is intended.
Finally, the εhoe εole sides are sufficiently flexible to bend out eaεily when the εhoeε are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the εhoe soles gently hold the sides of the wearer's foot sole when on, providing the equivalent of cuεtom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred shoe εole embodimentε include the εtructural and material flexibil- ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot εole aε if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanicε created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are εufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the structural support necesεary to maintain normal pronation and supination, as if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft- neεε of many of the εhoe εole materials used in shoe soleε in the exiεting art cauεe abnormal foot pronation and εupination.
Aε mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA and Fig. 3, the applicant has previously εhown heel lift with con¬ εtant frontal or tranεverεe plane thickneεs, since it is oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe sole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other shoe εole thickneεs variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the shoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. 45 invention.
For example, the heel wedge can be located per- pendicular to the subtalar axiε, which iε located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degreeε medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural support to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant'ε theoretically ideal εtability plane concept would teach that εuch a heel wedge orientation would require conεtant εhoe sole thicknesε in a vertical plane perpendicular to the chosen subtalar joint axis, instead of the frontal plane.
Besides providing a better fit, the intentional undersizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since the shoe laεt needε only to be approximate to provide a virtual cuεtom fit, due to the flexible εides. As a reεult, the under¬ sized flexible shoe sole sideε allow the applicant'ε Fig. 50 εhoe εole invention baεed on the theoretically ideal εtability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are εhoe upperε, since the flexible shoe εole εides can be built on standard shoe lasts, even though conceptually those εides conform to the εpecific εhape of the individual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sideε bend to εo conform when on the wearer's foot sole. Fig. 50 showε the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer; the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the εhoe laεt, which is asεumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51. Thus, the dashed lineε 29 and 51 εhow what the poεitionε of the inner εurface 30 and outer εurface 31 of the εhoe sole would be when the shoe is put on the foot of the wearer.
The Fig. 50 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer surface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus makeε much more practical the applicant'ε earlier underlying naturally contoured deεignε shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The shoe sole structureε εhown in Fig. 4 and 5, then, are εimilar to what the Fig. 50 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's load-bearing foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in this and prior applications show one line to emphasize the conceptual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, some divergence of the surface, especially under load and during locomotion would be unavoidable) .
The sides of the shoe εole εtructure described under Fig. 50 can also be used to form a slightly leεε optimal εtructure: a conventional shoe sole that haε been modified by having itε εideε bent up so that their inner surface conformε to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer εurface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional. Clearly, the closer the εideε are to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, the better aε a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 50 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's shape is both poεεible and more effective than conventional flat εhoe εole εideε. And in εome caεeε, εuch aε for diabetic patientε, it may be optimal to have relatively loose shoe sole sides providing no conforming pressure of the shoe sole on the tender foot sole; in such caseε, the shape of the flexible shoe uppers, which can even be made with very elastic materials such as lycra and spandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the shoe εole, to conform to the εhape of the foot.
Aε discussed earlier by the applicant, the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just as the foot sole deforms to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot sole and the shoe sole may start in different loca¬ tions — the shoe sole sides can even be conventionally flat on the ground — the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoeε do not, except when exactly upright. Consequently, the appli¬ cant's shoe sole invention, stated most broadly, includes any shoe sole — whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or εome intermediate position, including a εhape much εmaller than the wearer's foot sole — that deformε to conform to a shape at least simi¬ lar to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deforma¬ tion of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load. Of course, it is optimal in terms of preserving natural foot biomechanics, which iε the primary goal of the applicant, for the εhoe εole to conform to the foot sole when on the foot, not just when under a weight-bear¬ ing load. And, in any case, all of the esεential εtruc¬ tural εupport and propulεion elements previously identi¬ fied by the applicant earlier in discuεεing Fig. 3 must be supported by the foot sole. To the extent the shoe sole sides are easily flexible, as has already been specified as desirable, the position of the εhoe sole sides before the wearer puts on the shoe is lesε important, εince the sides will easily conform to the shape of the wearer's foot when the εhoe iε put on that foot. In view of that, even shoe sole sides that conform to a shape more than slightly εmaller than the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole would function in accordance with the applicant's general invention, since the flexible sides could bend out easily a considerable relative distance and still conform to the wearer's foot sole when on the wearer's foot. Fig. 51 is new in this application and similar to Fig. 11, which was new with the '598 application and which was is a combination of the shoe sole εtructure conceptε of Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; it combines the custom fit design with the contoured sides having material density variations that produce an effect similar to variationε in shoe sole thicknesε shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 7; only the midsole is shown. The density variation pattern shown in Fig. 2 can be combined with the type shown in Fig. 11 or Fig. 51. The density pattern can be constant in all crosε εections taken along the long the long axis of the shoe εole or the pattern can vary.
The applicant'ε Fig. 51 εhoe εole invention aintainε intact the firm lateral stability of the wearer's foot, that εtability as demonstrated when the wearer's foot is unshod and tilted out laterally in inversion to the extreme limit of the normal range of motion of the ankle joint of the foot; in a similar dem- onεtration in a conventional εhoe εole, the wearer's foot and ankle are unstable. The sideε of the applicant'ε shoe sole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the lateral stabil¬ ity of the wearer'ε foot when bare.
In addition, the applicant'ε invention main¬ tainε the natural εtability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout itε normal range of εideways pronation and supination motion occurring during all load-bearing phases of locomotion of the wearer, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot is tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contrast to unstable and inflexible conventional shoe soles, includ¬ ing the partially contoured existing art described above. The sides of the applicant's εhoe εole invention extend sufficiently far up the sides of the wearer's foot sole to maintain the natural stability and uninterrupted motion of the wearer's foot when bare. The exact mate¬ rial density of the shoe sole sides will be determined empirically for individuals and groups using standard biomechanical techniques of gait analysis to determine those combinations that best provide the barefoot stabil¬ ity described above.
For the Fig. 51 shoe sole invention, the amount of any shoe sole side portions coplanar with the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane is determined by the degree of shoe εole εtability deεired and the shoe sole weight and bulk required to provide said stability; the amount of said coplanar contoured sideε that is provided said shoe sole being sufficient to maintain intact the firm stability of the wearer's foot throughout the range of foot inversion and eversion motion typical of the use for which the shoe is intended and also typical of the kind of wearer — such as normal or as excessive pronator — for which said εhoe is intended.
Finally, the shoe εole εideε are εufficiently flexible to bend out easily when the shoes are put on the wearer's feet and therefore the shoe soles gently hold the sideε of the wearer'ε foot εole when on, providing the equivalent of cuεtom fit in a mass-produced shoe sole. In general, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments include the structural and material flexibil¬ ity to deform in parallel to the natural deformation of the wearer's foot sole as if it were bare and unaffected by any of the abnormal foot biomechanics created by rigid conventional shoe sole.
At the same time, the applicant's preferred shoe sole embodiments are sufficiently firm to provide the wearer's foot with the εtructural εupport neceεεary to maintain normal pronation and εupination, aε if the wearer's foot were bare; in contrast, the excessive soft¬ ness of many of the εhoe εole materialε used in shoe soles in the existing art cause abnormal foot pronation and supination.
As mentioned earlier regarding Fig. IA and Fig. 3, the applicant has previously shown heel lift with constant frontal or transverεe plane thickness, since it is oriented conventionally in alignment with the frontal or transverse plane and perpendicular to the long axis of the shoe εole. However, the heel wedge (or toe taper or other εhoe sole thicknesε variations in the sagittal plane along the long axis of the εhoe sole) can be located at an angle to the conventional alignment in the Fig. IA design.
For example, the heel wedge can be located perpendicular to the subtalar axis, which is located in the heel area generally about 20 to 25 degrees medially, although a different angle can be used base on individual or group testing; such a orientation may provide better, more natural εupport to the subtalar joint, through which critical pronation and supination motion occur. The applicant'ε theoretically ideal εtability plane concept would teach that εuch a heel wedge orientation would require conεtant εhoe εole thickneεε in a vertical plane perpendicular to the choεen εubtalar joint axiε, inεtead of the frontal plane. Beεideε providing a better fit, the intentional underεizing of the flexible εhoe sole sideε allowε for εimplified deεign of εhoe sole lasts, since the shoe last needε only to be approximate to provide a virtual cuεtom fit, due to the flexible sides. As a result, the under- sized flexible shoe sole sides allow the applicant'ε Fig. 50 εhoe εole invention baεed on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sideε can be built on εtandard εhoe laεtε, even though conceptually thoεe sides conform to the specific shape of the individual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sides bend to so conform when on the wearer's foot εole. Besideε providing a better fit, the intentional underεizing of the flexible shoe sole sides allows for simplified design of shoe sole lasts, since they can be designed according to the simple geometric methodology described in the textual specification of Fig. 27, United States Application 07/239,667 (filed 02 September 1988). That geometric approximation of the true actual contour of the human is close enough to provide a virtual custom fit, when compensated for by the flexible undersizing from standard shoe lasts described above.
A flexible underεized version of the fully contoured design described in Fig. 51 can also be pro¬ vided by a similar geometric approximation. As a result, the undersized flexible shoe εole εideε allow the appli- cant's shoe sole inventions based on the theoretically ideal stability plane to be manufactured in relatively standard sizes in the same manner as are shoe uppers, since the flexible shoe sole sides can be built on stan¬ dard shoe lastε, even though conceptually those sideε conform cloεely to the εpecific εhape of the individual wearer's foot sole, because the flexible sideε bend to conform when on the wearer's foot sole.
Fig. 51 shows the shoe sole structure when not on the foot of the wearer; the dashed line 29 indicates the position of the εhoe laεt, which is assumed to be a reasonably accurate approximation of the shape of the outer εurface of the wearer's foot sole, which determines the shape of the theoretically ideal stability plane 51. Thus, the dashed lines 29 and 51 show what the positions of the inner surface 30 and outer surface 31 of the shoe sole would be when the shoe iε put on the foot of the wearer.
The Fig. 51 invention provides a way make the inner surface 30 of the contoured shoe sole, especially its sides, conform very closely to the outer εurface 29 of the foot sole of a wearer. It thus makes much more practical the applicant's earlier underlying naturally contoured designε shown in Fig. 1A-C and Fig. 6. The shoe sole structure shown in Fig. 51, then, is what the Fig. 11 shoe sole structure would be when on the wearer's foot, where the inner surface 30 of the shoe upper is bent out to virtually coincide with the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer 29 (the figures in this and prior applicationε εhow one line to emphaεize the concep¬ tual coincidence of what in fact are two lines; in real world embodiments, some divergence of the surface, eεpe¬ cially under load and during locomotion would be unavoid- able) .
The sides of the shoe sole structure described under Fig. 51 can also be used to form a slightly lesε optimal εtructure: a conventional εhoe sole that has been modified by having its sideε bent up so that their inner surface conforms to shape nearly identical but slightly larger than the shape of the outer surface of the foot sole of the wearer, instead of the shoe sole sides being flat on the ground, as is conventional. Clearly, the closer the sides are to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, the better as a general rule, but any side position between flat on the ground and conforming like Fig. 11 to a shape slightly smaller than the wearer's shape is both possible and more effective than conventional flat shoe sole sides. And in some caseε, such as for diabetic patients, it may be optimal to have relatively loose shoe sole sides providing no conforming pressure of the shoe sole on the tender foot sole; in such caεeε, the shape of the flexible shoe upperε, which can even be made with very elaεtic materialε εuch aε lycra and spandex, can provide the capability for the shoe, including the shoe sole, to conform to the εhape of the foot.
As diεcuεsed earlier by the applicant, the critical functional feature of a shoe sole is that it deforms under a weight-bearing load to conform to the foot sole just aε the foot εole deformε to conform to the ground under a weight-bearing load. So, even though the foot εole and the εhoe εole may εtart in different loca¬ tionε — the εhoe εole εideε can even be conventionally flat on the ground — the critical functional feature of both is that they both conform under load to parallel the shape of the ground, which conventional shoes do not, except when exactly upright. Consequently, the appli- cant's shoe sole invention, stated most broadly, includes any shoe sole — whether conforming to the wearer's foot sole or to the ground or some intermediate position, including a shape much smaller than the wearer's foot sole — that deforms to conform to the theoretically ideal stability plane, which by definition itself deforms in parallel with the deformation of the wearer's foot sole under weight-bearing load.
Of course, it is optimal in terms of preserving natural foot biomechanicε, which iε the primary goal of the applicant, for the εhoe sole to conform to the foot sole when on the foot, not just when under a weight-bear¬ ing load. And, in any case, all of the esεential εtruc¬ tural εupport and propulεion elements previously identi¬ fied by the applicant earlier in discusεing Fig. 3 must be supported by the foot sole.
To the extent the shoe sole sideε are easily flexible, as has already been specified as desirable, the position of the shoe sole sideε before the wearer putε on the shoe is less important, since the εides will easily conform to the shape of the wearer's foot when the shoe is put on that foot. In view of that, even shoe sole sides that conform to a shape more than slightly smaller than the shape of the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole would function in accordance with the applicant'ε general invention, εince the flexible εideε could bend out eaεily a conεiderable relative diεtance and still conform to the wearer's foot sole when on the wearer's foot.
The applicant's shoe sole inventions described in Figs. 4, 10, 11 and 51 all attempt to provide struc¬ tural compensation for actual structural changeε in the feet of wearerε that have occurred from a lifetime of uεe of exiεting εhoeε, which have a major flaw that haε been identified and described earlier by the applicant. As a result, the biomechanical motion of even the wearer's bare feet have been degraded from what they would be if the wearer's feet had not been structurally changed. Consequently, the ultimate design goal of the applicant's inventions is to provide un-degraded barefoot motion. That meanε to provide wearerε with shoe soleε that com¬ pensate for their flawed barefoot structure to an extent sufficient to provide foot and ankle motion equivalent to that of their bare feet if never shod and therefore not flawed. Determining the biomechanical characteristics of such un-flawed bare feet will be difficult, either on an individual or group basis. The difficulty for many groups of wearers will be in finding un-flawed, never- shod barefoot from similar genetic groups, asεuming εig¬ nificant genetic differenceε exiεt, aε seems at least possible if not probable.
The ultimate goal of the applicant's invention iε to provide εhoe εole εtructureε that maintain the natural εtability and natural, uninterrupted motion of the foot when bare throughout itε normal range of εide- wayε pronation and εupination motion occurring during all load-bearing phaεeε of locomotion of a wearer who has never been shod in conventional shoes, including when said wearer is standing, walking, jogging and running, even when the foot iε tilted to the extreme limit of that normal range, in contraεt to unεtable and inflexible con¬ ventional shoe soleε.
Fig. 51, like Fig. 47, increases constructive density variations, as most typically measured in duro- meterε on a Shore A scale, to include 26 percent up to 50 percent and from 51 percent to 200 percent. The same variations in shoe bottom sole design can provide similar effectε to the variation in εhoe εole denεity described above.
In addition, any of the above described thick¬ ness variations from a theoretically ideal stability plane can be used together with any of the above - 128 -
described density or bottom sole design variations. Fig. 51 show such a combination; for illustration purposeε, it shows a thicknesε increase greater than the theoretically ideal stability plane on the right side and a lesεer thickneεε on the left side — both sides illustrate the density variations deεcribed above. All portionε of the shoe sole are included in thickness and density measure¬ ment, including the sockliner or insole, the midsole (including heel lift or other thickness variation mea- sured in the sagittal plane) and bottom or outer εole.
In addition the Fig. 51 invention and the Fig. 11 invention can be combined with the invention shown in Fig. 12 of the '870 application, which can also be com¬ bined with the other figures of this application, aε can Fig. 9A-9D of the '870 application. Any of theεe figureε can alεo be combined alone or together with Fig. 9 of thiε application, which iε Fig. 9 of the '302 application or Fig. 10 of that application, or with Figε. 11-15, 19- 28, 30, and 33A-33M of the '523 application, or with Figs.7-9 of the '313 application, or Fig. 8 of the '748 application, with or without stability sipe 11.
The above described thicknesε and density vari¬ ations apply to the load-bearing portions of the con¬ toured sides of the applicant's shoe sole inventions, the εide portion being identified in Fig. 4 of the '819 Pat¬ ent. Thickneεε and denεity variationε deεcribed above are meaεured along the contoured side portion. The side portion of the fully contoured design introduced in the '819 Patent in Fig. 15 cannot be defined as explicitly, since the bottom portion is contoured like the sides, but should be measured by eεtimating the equivalent Fig. 4 figure; generally, like Figε. 14 and Fig. 15 of the '819 Patent, aεεuming the flattened sole portion shown in Fig. 14 correspondε to a load-bearing equivalent of Fig. 15, so that the contoured sideε of Figε. 14 and Fig. 15 are essentially the same.
Alternately, the thicknesε and denεity varia¬ tionε described above can be measured from the center of the essential structural support and propulsion elements defined in the '819 Patent. Those elements are the baεe and lateral tuberosity of the calcaneus, the heads of the metatarsals, and the base of the fifth metatarsal, and the head of the first distal phalange, respectively. Of the metatarsal headε, only the firεt and fifth metatarεal heads are used for such measurement, since only those two are located on lateral portions of the foot and thus proximate to contoured stability sides of the applicant's shoe sole.
Fig. 52A-B is new with this continuation-in- part application; it broadens the definition of the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane, as defined in the '786 and all prior applications filed by the applicant. The '819 Patent and εubεequent applications have defined the inner surface of the theoretically ideal εtability plane •as conforming to the shape of the wearer's foot, espe¬ cially its sides, so that the inner surface of the appli¬ cant's shoe sole invention conforms to the outer surface of the wearer's foot sole, especially it εideε, when meaεured in frontal plane or transverse plane crosε sec¬ tions.
For illuεtration purposes, the right side of Fig. 52 explicitly includes an upper shoe sole surface that is complementary to the shape of all or a portion the wearer's foot sole. In addition, this application describes shoe contoured sole εide deεigns wherein the inner surface of the theoretically ideal εtability plane lies at some point between conforming or complementary to the shape of the wearer's foot sole, that is — roughly paralleling the foot sole including its side — and par¬ alleling the flat ground; that inner surface of the theo¬ retically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the foot sole during foot inversion and eversion, which is normal sideways or lateral motion. The basis of this design was introduced in the appli¬ cant's '302 application relative to Fig. 9 of that appli¬ cation. Again, for illuεtration purpoεeε, the left εide of Fig. 52B describes shoe sole side deεignε wherein the lower εurface of the theoretically ideal stability plane, which equates to the load-bearing surface of the bottom or outer shoe sole, of the shoe sole side portions is above the plane of the underneath portion of the shoe sole, when measured in frontal or transverεe plane croεε sections; that lower surface of the theoretically ideal stability plane becomes load-bearing in contact with the ground during foot inversion and eversion, which is nor¬ mal sidewayε or lateral motion.
Although the inventionε deεcribed in thiε application may in many caεes be less optimal than those previouεly deεcribed by the applicant in earlier applica- tionε, they nonetheleεε diεtinguiεh over all prior art and still do provide a significant stability improvement over existing footwear and thus provide εignificantly increaεed injury prevention benefit compared to exiεting footwear. Fig. 53 iε new in this continuation-in-part application and provides a means to measure the contoured εhoe sole sideε incorporated in the applicant'ε inven¬ tionε deεcribed above. Fig. 53 is Fig. 27 of the '819 Patent modified to correlate the height or extent of the contoured side portions of the shoe sole with a preciεe angular eaεurement from zero to 180 degreeε. That angu¬ lar meaεurement correεpondε roughly with the εupport for εideways tilting provided by the contoured shoe sole sides of any angular amount from zero degrees to 180 degreeε, at leaεt for εuch contoured εides proximate to any one or more or all of the esεential stability or propulsion structureε of the foot, aε defined above and previously, including in the '523 patent application. The contoured shoe sole sideε as described in this appli- cation can have any angular measurement from zero degreeε to 180 degrees.
Figs. 54A-54F, Fig.55A-E, and Fig. 56 are new to this continuation-in-part application and describe εhoe εole εtructural inventions that are formed with an upper surface to conform, or at leaεt be complementary, to the all or moεt or at leaεt part of the εhape of the wearer'ε foot εole, whether under a body weight load or unloaded, but without contoured stability sideε aε defined by the applicant. Aε εuch, Figs. 54-56 are simi¬ lar to Figs. 19-21 of the '819 Patent, but without the contoured εtability sides 28a defined in Fig. 4 of the '819 Patent and with shoe sole contoured side thickness variations, as measured in frontal or transverse plane cross sections as defined in this and earlier applica¬ tions.
Those contoured side thicknesε variationε from the theoretically ideal stability plane, as previously defined, are uniform thickness, variations of 5 to 10 percent, variations of 11 to 25 percent, variations of 26 to 40 percent and 41 to 50 for thickneεεeε decreasing from the theoretically ideal stability plane, thicknesε variations of 26 to 50 percent and 51 percent to 100 percent for thickness variations increasing from the theoretically ideal stability plane.
Figε. 54A-54F, Fig.55A-E, and Fig. 56, like the many other variationε of the applicant'ε naturally con¬ toured design described in this and earlier applications, shown a εhoe sole invention wherein both the upper, foot sole-contacting surface of the shoe sole and the bottom, ground-contacting εurface of the εhoe εole mirror the contourε of the bottom surface of the wearer's foot εole, forming in effect a flexible three dimensional mirror of the load-bearing portions of that foot sole when bare. The shoe sole εhown in Figε. 54-56 preferably include an insole layer, a midsole layer, and bottom sole layer, and variation in the thickneεε of the shoe sole, as meaεured in εagittal plane croεε εectionε, like the heel lift common to moεt εhoeε, aε well aε a shoe upper. Fig. 57A-57C is similar to Fig. 34A-34C, which show, in crosε εectionε εimilar to thoεe in pending U.S. Patent '349, that with the quadrant-εided deεign of Figε. 26, 31, 32 and 33C that it iε poεεible to have shoe sole sides that are both greater and lesser than the theoreti¬ cally ideal stability plane in the same shoe. Fig. 57A-C shows the same range of thickness variation in contoured shoe side as Fig. 45 and uεed to εhow simultaneously the general case for both extreme increases and extreme decreaseε. The quadrant deεign determineε the shape of the load-bearing portion of outer surface of the bottom or outer sole, which is coincident with the theoretically ideal stability plane; the finishing edge 53 or 53a is optional, not a mandatory part of the invention.
The relationship between the applicant'ε two different contoured εhoe sole side designs, the quadrant sided design and the naturally contoured design are dis- cuεεed in publiεhed PCT Application PCT/US89/03076, from which is quoted the following three paragraphs.
A corrected shoe sole design, however, avoids such unnatural interference by neutrally maintaining a constant distance between foot and ground, even when the shoe is tilted sideways, as if in effect the shoe sole were not there except to cushion and protect. Unlike existing εhoeε, the corrected εhoe would move with the foot'ε natural εideways pronation and supination motion on the ground. To the problem of using a shoe sole to maintain a naturally constant distance during that side¬ wayε motion, there are two poεsible geometric solutionε, depending upon whether just the lower horizontal plane of the shoe sole surface varies to achieve natural contour or both upper and lower surface planes vary. In the two plane solution, the naturally con¬ toured design, which will be described in Figures 1-28, both upper and lower surfaceε or planes of the shoe εole vary to conform to the natural contour of the human foot. The two plane εolution iε the moεt fundamental concept and naturally moεt effective. It is the only pure geo¬ metric solution to the mathematical problem of maintain¬ ing constant distance between foot and ground, and the most optimal, in the same sense that round is only εhape for a wheel and perfectly round is moεt optimal. On the other hand, it iε the least similar to existing designs of the two possible solutionε and requireε computer aided design and injection molding manufacturing techniques. In the more conventional one plane solution, the quadrant contour side design, which will be deεcribed in Figureε 29-37, the side contours are formed by varia¬ tions in the bottom surface alone. The upper surface or plane of the shoe sole remains unvaryingly flat in fron- tai plane crosε sections, like most existing shoes, while the plane of the bottom shoe sole varies on the sides to provide a contour that preserveε natural foot and ankle biomechanicε. Though leεs optimal than the two plane solution, the one plane quadrant contour side design is still the only optimal single plane solution to the prob¬ lem of avoiding disruption of natural human biomechanics. The one plane solution is the closeεt to exiεting shoe sole design, and therefore the easiest and cheapest to manufacture with existing equipment. Since it iε more conventional in appearance than the two plane solution, but less biomechanically effective, the one plane quad¬ rant contour side design is preferable for dress or street εhoeε and for light exercise, like casual walking. Fig. 57A-C, and Fig. 34A-34F, εhows a general embodiment of the applicant'ε invention for thickneεε or denεity variationε, whether quadrant εided or naturally contoured εides: that whatever the shoe sole side thick¬ ness variation defined for a particular embodiment, that thickness variation definition is maintained as measured in two different frontal or transverεe plane croεs sec¬ tionε and thoεe two croεs sections must be taken from sections of the shoe sole that have different thick- neεεeε, aε meaεured in εagittal plane cross sections or crosε εections along the long axis of the shoe sole. Fig. 57A-C also εhowε the special case of the radius of an intermediate shoe sole thickness, taken at (S2) at the base of the fifth metatarsal in Fig. 34B, is maintained constant throughout the quadrant sideε of the shoe sole, including both the heel, Fig. 34C, and the forefoot, Fig. 34A, so that the side thicknesε is lesε than the theoretically ideal stability plane at the heel and more at the forefoot. Though possible, this is not a preferred approach.
Fig. 58 is based on Fig. IB but also showε, for purpoεeε of illuεtration, on the right εide of Fig. 58 a relative thickneεε increaεe of the contoured shoe sole side for that portion of the contoured shoe sole side beyond the limit of the full range of normal sideways foot inversion and eversion motion, while uniform thick¬ nesε exiεtε for the load-bearing portions of the con¬ toured shoe sole εide. Alternately, the same relative thicknesε increaεe of the contoured εhoe εole side could exist for that portion of the contoured shoe sole side beyond the limit of the full range of foot inversion and eversion, relatively more uniform or smaller thicknesε variationε exiεtε for the load-bearing portionε of the contoured εhoe sole side; this design could apply to Fig. 4, 5, 8, 45, 46, and 49 and otherε. For purpoεes of illustration, the left εide of Fig. 58 εhowε a denεity increaεe uεed for the εame purpose as the thicknesε increase. And the same design can be uεed for embodi¬ mentε with decreasing thicknesε variations, like Fig. 7 and Fig. 48.
That normal range of foot inversion or ever¬ sion, and its corresponding limits of load-bearing outer or bottom sole surface 211, noted above and elεewhere in thiε application can be determined either by individual meaεurement by meanε known in the art or by uεing general exiεting rangeε or rangeε developed by εtatiεtically meaningful εtudies, including using new, more dynamically based testing procedures; such ranges may also include a extra margin for error to protect the individual wearer. Thus, it will clearly be understood by those εkilled in the art that the foregoing deεcription haε been made in ter ε of the preferred embodiment and vari¬ ouε changes and modificationε may be made without depart- ing from the scope of the present invention which is to be defined by the appended claims.

Claims

WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:
1. A shoe sole for a shoe and other footwear, particularly athletic shoeε and including street shoes, comprising: an upper, foot εole-contacting surface of the shoe sole that is shaped to a contour at least complemen- tary to the εhape of at leaεt part of a sole of a fore- foot of a wearer's foot, including at least part of an underneath sole portion and at least one side portion of the foot sole; the shoe sole is characterized by εaid at leaεt one conforming shoe sole side portion having a thickness which varies from a uniform thickness by not less than 26 percent nor more than 100 percent, when measured in transverse plane crosε sections; the εhoe εole thickneεε varieε when measured in sagittal plane cross sectionε and iε greater in a heel area than in a forefoot area; the thickneεε of the εhoe sole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not leεε than 26 percent nor more than 100 percent aε meaεured in tranεverεe plane croεε sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the forefoot at least through a sidewayε tilt angle of 20 degrees.
2. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 1, wherein the shoe sole haε at leaεt another εide portion, which adjoinε εaid conforming side portion in the fore- foot, that is lesε thick than εaid conforming side por- tion, in order to save weight and to increase flexibil- ity.
3. The shoe εole as set forth in claim 2, wherein the thicknesε of the εhoe sole, which varies from a uniform thickness by not lesε than 26 percent nor more than 100 percent as measured in transverse plane cross sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the forefoot at least through a sideways tilt angle of 45 degrees.
4. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 2, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varieε from a uniform thickneεε by not less than 26 percent nor more than 100 percent as measured in transverse plane crosε εectionε, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the forefoot at least through a sideways tilt angle of 90 degrees.
5. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 2, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not leεε than 26 percent nor more than 100 percent as measured in transverεe plane cross sectionε, extendε from the underneath εole portion through the conforming εide portion at the forefoot at least through a sideways tilt angle of 135 degrees.
6. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 2, wherein the thicknesε of the εhoe εole, which varieε from a uniform thickness by not lesε than 26 percent nor more than 100 percent as measured in transverse plane crosε sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the forefoot at least through a sidewayε tilt angle of 180 degrees.
7. The εhoe sole as set forth in claim 3, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming side portion includes at least a midsole.
8. The shoe sole aε set forth in claim 3, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming side portion includes at least a midsole and an outer sole.
9. The εhoe εole aε εet forth in claim 3, wherein said conforming side portion is proximate to a head of a fifth metatarsal of a wearer's foot.
10. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 3, wherein said conforming side portion is proximate to a head of a first metatarsal of a wearer's foot.
11. The εhoe εole aε set forth in claim 3, wherein said conforming side portion iε proximate to a head of a first distal phalange of a wearer's foot.
12. A shoe sole for a shoe and other footwear, particularly athletic shoeε and including εtreet εhoeε, compriεing: an upper, foot sole-contacting surface of the shoe sole that is shaped to a contour at least co plemen- tary to the shape of at least part of a sole of a heel of a wearer's foot, including at leaεt part of an underneath sole portion and at least one εide portion of the foot εole; the εhoe εole iε characterized by said at least one conforming shoe sole side portion having a thicknesε which varieε from a uniform thickneεε and density by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent, when mea- εured in transverse plane crosε εections; the shoe sole thickness varies when measured in sagittal plane croεε sections and is greater in a heel area than in a forefoot area; the thicknesε of the εhoe εole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not leεε than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent aε meaεured in transverse plane cross εectionε, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the heel at least through a sidewayε tilt angle of 20 degrees.
13. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 12, wherein the shoe sole has at least another side portion, which adjoinε said conforming side portion in the heel, that is less thick than said conforming side portion, in order to save weight and to increase flexibility.
14. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 13, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not lesε than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent aε meaεured in transverse plane crosε sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the heel at leaεt through a εidewayε tilt angle of 45 degrees.
15. The εhoe sole aε set forth in claim 13, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thickneεs by not lesε than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent as measured in transverse plane crosε εections, extends from the underneath εole portion through the conforming εide portion at the heel at leaεt through a εideways tilt angle of 90 degrees.
16. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 13, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thickness by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent as measured in transverεe plane cross sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the heel at least through a sidewayε tilt angle of 135 degrees.
17. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 13, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent as meaεured in transverse plane crosε sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the heel at least through a εidewayε tilt angle of 180 degrees.
18. The εhoe εole aε set forth in claim 14, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming side portion includes at leaεt a midsole.
19. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 14, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming side portion includes at least a midsole and an outer sole.
20. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 14, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming side portion includes at least a heel lift.
21. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 14, wherein said conforming side portion iε proximate to a baεe of a calcaneus of a wearer's foot.
22. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 14, wherein said conforming side portion is proximate to a lateral tuberosity of a wearer's foot.
23. The shoe sole as εet forth in claim 14, wherein εaid conforming εide portion iε proximate to a base of a fifth metatarsal of a wearer's foot.
24. A shoe εole conεtruction for a εhoe and other footwear, εuch aε athletic and εtreet εhoeε, com- prising: a shoe sole with an upper, foot sole-contacting surface that is at least complementary to the shape of a wearer's foot sole, at least in a forefoot and heel area, including a portion conforming to at least a part of a curved side of the foot sole; and the load-bearing portions of the shoe sole have a thicknesε which varies from a uniform thickness by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent, when measured in transverεe plane croεε εectionε; said shoe εole thickness being defined as the shortest distance between any point on an upper, foot sole-contacting surface of said shoe sole and a lower, ground-contacting surface of said shoe sole, when mea- sured in frontal plane cross sections; said thicknesε varying when measured in the sagittal plane and being greater in a heel area than a forefoot area; the thickness which varies from a uniform thickness by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent of the shoe sole extends through a conforming side portion of at least 10 degrees; and the load-bearing portions of the shoe sole are subεtantially compriεed of at leaεt a midεole and an outer sole.
25. The shoe εole aε εet forth in claim 24, wherein the εhoe εole haε at leaεt another εide portion, which adjoinε εaid conforming εide portion, that iε less thick than said conforming side portion, in order to save weight and to increase flexibility.
26. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thickness by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent as measured in transverεe plane croεε εections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the heel at least through a sidewayε tilt angle of 45 degrees.
27. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein the thicknesε of the εhoe εole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent as measured in transverεe plane croεs sectionε, extendε from the underneath εole portion through the conforming εide portion at the heel at least through a sideways tilt angle of 90 degrees.
28. The εhoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein the thicknesε of the εhoe sole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent as measured in transverse plane cross sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the forefoot at least through a sideways tilt angle of 135 degrees.
29. The shoe sole aε εet forth in claim 25, wherein the thickneεs of the εhoe sole, which varies from a uniform thicknesε by not leεε than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent aε meaεured in transverse plane cross sections, extends from the underneath sole portion through the conforming side portion at the forefoot at least through a εidewayε tilt angle of 180 degrees.
30. The εhoe εole as set forth in claim 25, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming εide portion includes at least a midεole.
31. The εhoe sole as εet forth in claim 25, wherein the ground-contacting portion of εaid conforming side portion includes at least a midsole and an outer sole.
32. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein the ground-contacting portion of said conforming side portion includes at least a heel lift.
33. The shoe sole aε set forth in claim 25, wherein said conforming side portion iε proximate to a baεe of a calcaneus of a wearer's foot.
34. The εhoe sole as εet forth in claim 25, wherein εaid conforming side portion is proximate to a lateral tuberosity of a wearer's foot.
35. The εhoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein εaid conforming εide portion iε proximate to a base of a fifth metatarsal of a wearer's foot.
36. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein said conforming side portion is proximate to a head of a fifth metatarsal of a wearer's foot.
37. The shoe εole aε εet forth in claim 25, wherein said conforming side portion iε proximate to a head of a first metatarsal of a wearer's foot.
38. The shoe sole as set forth in claim 25, wherein εaid conforming εide portion iε proximate to a head of a firεt diεtal phalange of a wearer's foot.
39. A shoe εole for a shoe and other footwear, particularly athletic shoes and including street shoes, comprising: an upper, foot sole-contacting surface of the shoe sole that is shaped to a contour at least complemen- tary to the shape of at least part of a sole of a fore- foot of a wearer's foot, including at least part of an underneath sole portion and at least one εide portion of the foot sole; the shoe sole is characterized by said at least one conforming εhoe εole εide portion having a thickness which varies from a uniform thickneεε by not less than 51 percent nor more than 100 percent, when meaεured in transverse plane crosε εectionε; the εhoe sole thickness varies when measured in sagittal plane cross sections and is greater in a heel area than in a forefoot area; the thickness of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thickness by not lesε than 51 percent nor more than 100 percent aε meaεured in tranεverse plane cross sectionε, extendε from the underneath εole portion through the conforming εide portion at the forefoot at least through a sideways tilt angle of 20 degrees.
40. A shoe sole for a shoe and other footwear, particularly athletic shoes and including street shoeε, comprising: an upper, foot sole-contacting surface of the shoe sole that is shaped to a contour at least com lemen- tary to the shape of at least part of a sole of a heel of a wearer's foot, including at least part of an underneath εole portion and at leaεt one εide portion of the foot εole; the shoe sole is characterized by said at least one conforming shoe sole side portion having a thicknesε and density which varies from a uniform thicknesε and denεity by not less than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent, when meaεured in tranεverse plane cross sec- tions; the shoe sole thickness varies when measured in sagittal plane croεε εectionε and iε greater in a heel area than in a forefoot area; the thickness and density of the shoe sole, which varies from a uniform thickness and density by not lesε than 26 percent nor more than 50 percent aε meaεured in transverse plane crosε εectionε, extendε from the underneath εole portion through the conforming side por- tion at the heel at least through a sideways tilt angle of 20 degrees.
PCT/US1996/010223 1995-06-07 1996-06-07 Shoe sole structures WO1997000029A1 (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU64773/96A AU6477396A (en) 1995-06-07 1996-07-07 Shoe sole structures

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US47297995A 1995-06-07 1995-06-07
US472,979 1995-06-07

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO1997000029A1 true WO1997000029A1 (en) 1997-01-03

Family

ID=23877685

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US1996/010223 WO1997000029A1 (en) 1995-06-07 1996-06-07 Shoe sole structures

Country Status (2)

Country Link
AU (1) AU6477396A (en)
WO (1) WO1997000029A1 (en)

Cited By (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5893221A (en) * 1997-10-16 1999-04-13 Forest Footwear L.L.C. Footwear having a protuberance
US7010869B1 (en) 1999-04-26 2006-03-14 Frampton E. Ellis, III Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US7334350B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2008-02-26 Anatomic Research, Inc Removable rounded midsole structures and chambers with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
US7707742B2 (en) 1999-04-26 2010-05-04 Ellis Iii Frampton E Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US8873914B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2014-10-28 Frampton E. Ellis Footwear sole sections including bladders with internal flexibility sipes therebetween and an attachment between sipe surfaces
US9568946B2 (en) 2007-11-21 2017-02-14 Frampton E. Ellis Microchip with faraday cages and internal flexibility sipes

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US3806974A (en) * 1972-01-10 1974-04-30 Paolo A Di Process of making footwear
US3958291A (en) * 1974-10-18 1976-05-25 Spier Martin I Outer shell construction for boot and method of forming same
US4145785A (en) * 1977-07-01 1979-03-27 Usm Corporation Method and apparatus for attaching soles having portions projecting heightwise
US4161828A (en) * 1975-06-09 1979-07-24 Puma-Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler Kg Outer sole for shoe especially sport shoes as well as shoes provided with such outer sole
US4399620A (en) * 1980-10-01 1983-08-23 Herbert Funck Padded sole having orthopaedic properties
US4715133A (en) * 1985-06-18 1987-12-29 Rudolf Hartjes Golf shoe

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US3806974A (en) * 1972-01-10 1974-04-30 Paolo A Di Process of making footwear
US3958291A (en) * 1974-10-18 1976-05-25 Spier Martin I Outer shell construction for boot and method of forming same
US4161828A (en) * 1975-06-09 1979-07-24 Puma-Sportschuhfabriken Rudolf Dassler Kg Outer sole for shoe especially sport shoes as well as shoes provided with such outer sole
US4145785A (en) * 1977-07-01 1979-03-27 Usm Corporation Method and apparatus for attaching soles having portions projecting heightwise
US4399620A (en) * 1980-10-01 1983-08-23 Herbert Funck Padded sole having orthopaedic properties
US4715133A (en) * 1985-06-18 1987-12-29 Rudolf Hartjes Golf shoe

Cited By (25)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5893221A (en) * 1997-10-16 1999-04-13 Forest Footwear L.L.C. Footwear having a protuberance
US8291614B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2012-10-23 Anatomic Research, Inc. Removable rounded midsole structures and chambers with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
US7334350B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2008-02-26 Anatomic Research, Inc Removable rounded midsole structures and chambers with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
US7562468B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2009-07-21 Anatomic Research, Inc Removable rounded midsole structures and chambers with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
US10016015B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2018-07-10 Anatomic Research, Inc. Footwear soles with computer controlled configurable structures
US8656607B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2014-02-25 Anatomic Research, Inc. Soles for shoes or other footwear having compartments with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
US9398787B2 (en) 1999-03-16 2016-07-26 Frampton E. Ellis, III Removable rounded midsole structures and chambers with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
US8261468B2 (en) 1999-04-26 2012-09-11 Frampton E. Ellis Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US7793429B2 (en) 1999-04-26 2010-09-14 Ellis Iii Frampton E Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US8667709B2 (en) 1999-04-26 2014-03-11 Frampton E. Ellis Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US7707742B2 (en) 1999-04-26 2010-05-04 Ellis Iii Frampton E Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US9414641B2 (en) 1999-04-26 2016-08-16 Frampton E. Ellis Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US7010869B1 (en) 1999-04-26 2006-03-14 Frampton E. Ellis, III Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
US8959804B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2015-02-24 Frampton E. Ellis Footwear sole sections including bladders with internal flexibility sipes therebetween and an attachment between sipe surfaces
US9271538B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2016-03-01 Frampton E. Ellis Microprocessor control of magnetorheological liquid in footwear with bladders and internal flexibility sipes
US9339074B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2016-05-17 Frampton E. Ellis Microprocessor control of bladders in footwear soles with internal flexibility sipes
US9107475B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2015-08-18 Frampton E. Ellis Microprocessor control of bladders in footwear soles with internal flexibility sipes
US8925117B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2015-01-06 Frampton E. Ellis Clothing and apparel with internal flexibility sipes and at least one attachment between surfaces defining a sipe
US9642411B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2017-05-09 Frampton E. Ellis Surgically implantable device enclosed in two bladders configured to slide relative to each other and including a faraday cage
US9681696B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2017-06-20 Frampton E. Ellis Helmet and/or a helmet liner including an electronic control system controlling the flow resistance of a magnetorheological liquid in compartments
US8873914B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2014-10-28 Frampton E. Ellis Footwear sole sections including bladders with internal flexibility sipes therebetween and an attachment between sipe surfaces
US10021938B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2018-07-17 Frampton E. Ellis Furniture with internal flexibility sipes, including chairs and beds
US11039658B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2021-06-22 Frampton E. Ellis Structural elements or support elements with internal flexibility sipes
US11503876B2 (en) 2004-11-22 2022-11-22 Frampton E. Ellis Footwear or orthotic sole with microprocessor control of a bladder with magnetorheological fluid
US9568946B2 (en) 2007-11-21 2017-02-14 Frampton E. Ellis Microchip with faraday cages and internal flexibility sipes

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU6477396A (en) 1997-01-15

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US6789331B1 (en) Shoes sole structures
US7168185B2 (en) Shoes sole structures
US7647710B2 (en) Shoe sole structures
US8141276B2 (en) Devices with an internal flexibility slit, including for footwear
US6918197B2 (en) Shoe sole structures
US9414641B2 (en) Shoe sole orthotic structures and computer controlled compartments
CA1160833A (en) Footwear sole member
CA2534381C (en) Footwear and insole therefor
US7562468B2 (en) Removable rounded midsole structures and chambers with computer processor-controlled variable pressure
JP2002538866A (en) Removable rounded bottom structure and chamber using computer processor controlled variable pressure
WO2001080678A2 (en) Removable midsole structures and chambers with controlled variable pressure
WO1997000029A1 (en) Shoe sole structures
EP0955820A1 (en) Shoe sole structures
WO1996039060A1 (en) Shoe sole structures
WO2002009547A2 (en) Shoe sole orthotic structure
RU2115352C1 (en) Sole manufacture method

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AL AM AT AU AZ BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GE HU IL IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK TJ TM TR TT UA UG US UZ VN AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): KE LS MW SD SZ UG AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA

121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase
NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: CA