Soccer cleats with downward flexion that respect the claw-like movement of the feet.

Description

1 / 12 DESCRIPTIVE REPORT Soccer cleats with downward flexion that respect the claw-like movement of the feet. Utility Model Field

[01] The present utility model is situated in the field of sport, more precisely football, as it is a football boot model with the main and innovative characteristics of making the most of the natural potential of the feet, as well as respecting their anatomy, thus being able to combine comfort, performance and possible reduction of pain. Fundamentals of the Utility Model

[02] Soccer cleats have been around for a long time, and although they come in a wide variety of models, colors, designs, and materials, they usually have parts in common, such as the upper, laces, heel counter, usually insoles, and outsole with cleats to prevent practitioners of this sport from slipping during the movements required in field soccer.

[03] However, a technical problem frequently observed in traditional soccer cleats is that, for the most part, they are rigid and do not fully respect the natural anatomy of the feet. This rigid shape, especially in the width of the toe area, can result in pressure points and discomfort during prolonged use, as well as limiting the natural and propulsive movement of the toes.

[04] Even the few boots that are softer and more flexible still tend to have narrow shapes, which can cause a slight tightness in the toes. In addition, the flexibility of these boots is generally limited to upward flexion movements, because even in more flexible soles, downward flexion is not well executed due to the upper not "yielding" downwards as well, thus leaving aside the total freedom of movement of the toes, more precisely with regard to downward flexion.

[05] During the practice of sports and / or observations by the inventor, it was identified that traditional soccer cleats, by not fully respecting the natural shape (especially width) of the foot, can cause pressure points and Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 3 / 30 2 / 12 cause discomfort. In addition, these cleats restrict the natural movement of the toes, especially in the area where the foot, in its free (barefoot) position, performs a "claw" movement, essential for propulsion and stability during running.

[06] This “claw” movement of the toes, absent in traditional soccer cleat models, can influence performance and acceleration. Analyzing the natural movement from the waist down, four main joints are identified in running: the hip, the knees, the ankles and, finally, the plantar region and the toes, which also contribute to the athlete's propulsion.

[07] Thus, traditional soccer cleat models, by not including this toe movement and not allowing them to bend, may fail to fully utilize this joint. And even with the use of looser models that allow some toe movement, this occurs internally, meaning the effect is not transferred to the ground. Although the exact contribution of each joint cannot be determined, eliminating the movement of one of these 4 joints can impact performance.

[08] Faced with this problem, the idea arose to develop a model that would have a main differentiating feature, present in all versions, and a complementary differentiating feature, optional in some versions, which enhances the first when combined. These differentiating features will be the subject of this utility model patent application, namely:

[09] The first difference, which is the main one and, as mentioned, will be present in all versions, is the structure that allows the boot to bend downwards at specific flexion points. Therefore, it is part of the title "boot with downward flexion that respects the natural movement of the feet," which represents a structural innovation absent in traditional models, since, as mentioned in paragraph

[004] , even soft and flexible boots only allow upward bending. In order for the boot to bend downwards, a strategic combination was developed between the sole and the upper, both designed with targeted flexibility. This exclusive combination of flexibility and flexion points perpendicular to the axis of the boot was not found in exhaustive searches in the market and on patent websites. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 4 / 30 3 / 12

[10] The second distinguishing feature, characterized as complementary and present in some versions of the design, is the wider shape at the front, which complements the idea of ​​respecting the natural movement of the feet, allowing for better distribution of the toes, known as the barefoot design. This design, combined with downward flexibility, is essential to provide a more complete and efficient gripping motion, offering the necessary space for the toes to flex freely and transmit this movement to the ground, maximizing the athlete's natural propulsion. Although the barefoot design offers this additional benefit, the design also includes versions with only downward flexibility, in models with a traditional shape, to meet the preferences of different users.

[11] In addition to what was mentioned at the end of paragraph

[009] , besides market searches, searches were carried out at INPI, in which the broad term “chuteira” (soccer boot) was used, and none of the items viewed showed similarity to this application. Subsequently, additional searches were carried out on the Spacenet (https: / / worldwide.espacenet.com / ) and Google Patents (https: / / patents.google.com / ) websites, with the following terms, both in Portuguese and in English: “chuteira que dobra para baixo” (soccer boot that folds down), “chuteira de futebol com flexão para baixo” (soccer boot with downward flexion), “chuteira dobrado” (foldable boot), “chuteira barefoot” (barefoot boot), “chuteira mínima” (minimalist boot). Again, no results similar to this application were found, corroborating its originality and inventive character, according to the criteria established in INPI manuals and standards for utility models.

[12] Thus, according to the descriptive report and claims table, the main feature will be the fold-down design (which will always be present) and may be combined with a barefoot model or a traditional model (without the wider part at the front).

[13] Still maintaining the systematic and downward fold, whether barefoot or not, there may also be a third combination, that is, having the heel slightly higher (traditional models) or even “zero drop” where there is no difference in sole height; however, as this is not new in the field of football boots, it is up to the manufacturer. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 5 / 30 4 / 12

[14] Thus, among the potential benefits of this new model may include: firstly, the possibility of greater performance, since by allowing the propulsive movement of the foot and especially the toes, as mentioned in paragraph

[006] , it may help the starting process, and favor the more efficient use of energy by taking advantage of another joint that will help in the movement.

[15] Another benefit is greater comfort, as allowing natural foot movement, and also a greater width for the toe area, tends to reduce pressure points, which can contribute to a feeling of greater comfort during use.

[16] In addition, as a third benefit, it may help reduce injuries, as by allowing the “claw” or “spring” movement of the feet, it also distributes impacts in this way along with other joints such as the ankle, knee and hip, thus having 4 joints acting in this and not just 3 as in traditional football boots, not to mention that a more natural movement can contribute to better stability, which can also help in better perception of the terrain, and possibly fewer sprains.

[17] In short, the aim of this project is to develop a soccer cleat that replicates the feeling and freedom of movement of bare feet, but with strategically positioned studs to ensure the necessary grip on the field. The intention is to allow the user to experience a greater connection with the ground and flexibility of movement, as if “playing barefoot”, but with the addition of studs for traction and a top protection that offers impact resistance, without losing flexibility. This flexibility in the upper allows the foot to move naturally, offering extra protection without compromising freedom of movement. Thus, the design combines the best of both worlds: the lightness and freedom of bare feet with the safety and traction of a cleat that conforms to the shape of the foot. Brief description of the drawings Before the brief description of the drawings, a simple and direct list of them is presented here, followed by a brief description of each one. List of Figures Figure 01 - View of both the plantar and lateral regions of a human foot. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 6 / 30 5 / 12 Figure 02-A Side, top and bottom view of a barefoot soccer cleat. Figure 02-B is similar to Figure “01-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 03-A Side and bottom view of a barefoot soccer cleat. Figure 03-B is similar to Figure “03-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 04-A Side and bottom view of a barefoot soccer cleat. Figure 04-B is similar to Figure “04-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 05-A Side and bottom view of a barefoot soccer cleat. Figure 05-B is similar to Figure “05-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 06-A Side and bottom view of a barefoot soccer cleat. Figure 06-B is similar to Figure “06-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 07 - Side and bottom view of a barefoot format. Figure 07-B is similar to Figure “07-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 08 - Side and bottom view of a barefoot soccer cleat. Figure 08-B is similar to Figure “08-A” but the boot is in traditional width. And now, below are the drawings / figures of the device, which will now be briefly presented / described: Figure 01 - View of both the plantar and lateral regions of a human foot, as if it were inside a shoe, but showing the bones of the shoe, mainly marking through two points (A and B) the metatarsophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints of the toes respectively. Figure 02-A Side, top and bottom view of a soccer cleat with two combined front flex points on both the sole and upper, in a barefoot design. Figure 02-B is similar to Figure “01-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 03-A Side and bottom view of a soccer cleat with two flex points in the sole and a fully flexible upper, in a barefoot design. Figure 03-B is similar to Figure “03-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 7 / 30 6 / 12 Figure 04-A Side and bottom view of a soccer cleat with two flex points in the upper and a fully flexible, barefoot sole. Figure 04-B is similar to Figure “04-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 05-A Side and bottom view of a soccer cleat with more than two flex points in the upper and sole, and in barefoot format. Figure 05-B is similar to Figure “05-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 06-A Side and bottom view of a soccer cleat with more than two flex points in the sole, fully flexible upper, and barefoot design. Figure 06-B is similar to Figure “06-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 07 - Side and bottom view of a soccer cleat with more than two flex points in the upper, a fully flexible sole, and a barefoot design. Figure 07-B is similar to Figure “07-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Figure 08-A Side and bottom view of a soccer cleat without flex points, considering that both the upper and sole are fully flexible and in a barefoot design. Figure 08-B is similar to Figure “08-A” but the boot is in traditional width. Utility Model Description

[18] The present MAIN utility model refers to an innovative football boot which, according to figure 02-A, is characterized by the presence of a sole (01) and upper (02) with two strategically positioned and aligned flexion points (03) at the metatarsophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints of the toes, enabling a downward bend. These flexion points, essential for providing the “claw” movement that maximizes traction and better distributes impact, providing comfort and better performance to the user, can be configured in various ways, such as U or V-shaped flexion points, areas with thinner or more flexible material, among other appropriate methods. The choice of the exact configuration is at the manufacturer's discretion, provided that the flexion functionality is maintained. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 8 / 30 7 / 12 downwards, a key feature of the Utility Model. This targeted flexibility improves user comfort and performance, facilitating movement and a natural feel for the feet, especially on natural (preferably) and, eventually, synthetic grass.

[19] The boot incorporates conventional elements that complement its innovative structure: studs (04) to ensure grip on the ground, a bootie (05) for a firm fit in the ankle region which will preferably be slightly elevated in the Achilles tendon area, and a heel counter (06) which will be lined internally with soft material to avoid discomfort, but which externally is preferably more rigid, to ensure stability and prevent the foot from slipping in the heel area, and also laces (07) preferably positioned on the side and with reduced length so as not to interfere with the flexibility points. These laces are on an elastic piece (08), which follows the reduced length of the laces (07) so as not to compromise the flexion points and allows, thanks to its flexibility, easy entry of the foot when putting on the boot.

[20] This rigidity in the heel counter and rearfoot area does not violate the essential principle of the boot, as it will continue to respect the natural shape of the feet, given that in these areas the foot is naturally more rigid and does not flex downwards, and thus it can provide an additional point of stability, compensating for the flexibility in other areas of the boot. However, the exact configuration of the rigidity as well as the internal lining can be adjusted at the manufacturer's discretion, according to specific performance and comfort needs, provided that safety and stability are maintained.

[21] The same figure also illustrates, in addition to the targeted and innovative flexibility of the boot, the barefoot characteristic. In which, the front part of the boot is slightly wider, allowing for the natural expansion of the toes and offering greater stability and adaptation to the shape of the foot. This design is preferred to meet the feeling of naturalness, but the manufacturer may choose to adjust the dimensions of the front width according to different market demands, as long as this version maintains the barefoot concept. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 9 / 30 8 / 12

[22] Also in the same figure, something that is common even in traditional football boots is evident, namely, at rest, it has an elevation in the front part, creating an angle to the ground that can enhance the “grip” effect to an even greater extent than bare feet, given that the latter, when at rest on the ground, do not have this angle. The manufacturer is free to adjust the degree of elevation according to the user's specific preferences.

[23] In the lower left corner of Figure 02-A, it can be seen that the two flexion points may allow a downward flexion greater than 180° in relation to the ground, simulating the behavior of the feet when suspended, this further helps in the propulsion movement (when the feet are pushing and already leaving the ground), and may also act as a cushion on landing, which can reduce the impact load on other joints such as ankles, knees and hips, functioning as a kind of “shock absorber”.

[24] As mentioned, design features can be adapted by the manufacturer without compromising the essence of the Utility Model. One of these features that deserves highlighting, depending on preferences, is the ability to design the boot with a drop (higher heel) or zero drop (flat), a choice that may bring more sporting potential depending on the manufacturer's other combinations / preferences.

[25] All these details ensure that a person skilled in the art can reproduce the utility model, fully understanding the concept of downward flexibility and barefoot design, which are the differentiating factors that give legitimacy to this utility model. Although each element has a preferred recommendation, the structure allows for variations according to manufacturing and market needs, as long as the main functionality is respected.

[26] All this so that, as mentioned in paragraph

[017] , the natural potential of the feet is respected, adding essential items for playing field football, such as cleats, soles and uppers, among other elements. These components serve to enhance natural performance without limiting movement, challenging the industry's tendency to restrict mobility. The Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 10 / 30 9 / 12 This utility model seeks to fulfill the vision and dream of its creator: to provide the sensation of "playing barefoot". Examples of Utility Model Implementation

[27] Based on the fact that “examples of implementation of the utility model” are characterized by the constructive variations of the product, that is, the various possible configurations that it can present, this will be explored exactly in the following paragraphs, in which the new formats, new materials, new characteristics will be shown, but at the same time maintaining the essence in all dependent claims which is the folding down.

[28] Below are described the constructive variations of the utility model, represented by the dependent claims, which include different configurations of sole and upper. Each variation explores a specific combination of features, which will be detailed below:

[29] Figure 02-B shows a version with sole (01) and upper (02) with two flex points (03), similar to the main version, but with traditional width at the front. This configuration is intended for users who prefer the narrower and more conventional shape, although it may not be as effective in folding down, it may be required by users who want a traditional shape in terms of front width.

[30] Figure 03-A presents a configuration that maintains the characteristics of the main model (figure 02-A) but with the only change in the upper (02) which in this case will be fully flexible or at least from the metatarsal region, which involves the plantar arch and the toes, but may remain rigid in the ankle and heel area. Thus, the sole (01) also has two flexion points (03) that allow it to bend downwards in the toe areas, but with a more malleable upper and barefoot model.

[31] Figure 03-B has the same characteristics as the previous one (figure 03A), but now in a traditional front width format, which although it may not be as effective when folding down, may be required by users who want a traditional format in terms of front width.

[32] Figure 04-A presents a configuration that maintains the characteristics of the main model (figure 02-A) but with the only change being in the upper (02) Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 11 / 30 10 / 12 which in this case will be rigid with two flexion points (03) in the toe area and the sole (01) fully flexible, being able to remain rigid in the ankle and heel area. Thus, the upper (02) also has two flexion points (03) that allows bending downwards in the toe areas, but with a more flexible sole (01) in a barefoot model.

[33] Figure 04-B has the same characteristics as the previous one (figure 04A), but now in a traditional front width format, which although it may not be as effective when folding down, may be required by users who want a traditional format in terms of front width.

[34] Figure 05-A shows a version with a rigid sole (01) and upper (02), but with more than two flexion points (03), distributed from the metatarsal region, which involves the plantar arch and toes, and a barefoot version, which can keep the ankle and heel part more rigid, and thus this configuration still offers a boot with some firmness due to the material it is made of, but a greater region of flexibility than the previous version due to the various flexion points (03), being an intermediate transition and a good model for those who are used to rigid boots and want to migrate to a flexible boot that is a little wider at the front.

[35] Figure 05-B represents a variation of the previous version, but in traditional width. This configuration allows flexibility, but with a normal shape at the tip, which although it may not be as effective in folding as the barefoot model, aims to meet the needs of those who want a more similar fit to a traditional model.

[36] Figure 06-A illustrates a new version with a rigid sole (01) that has more than two flexion points (03), distributed from the metatarsal, which involves the plantar arch and toe region, while the upper (02) is fully flexible, and barefoot shaped. This design may continue with the ankle and heel region more rigid / reinforced, but already presents an increased flexibility and a more malleable version in the upper part, given that here the upper is already fully flexible from the metatarsal region.

[37] Figure 06-B represents a variation of the previous version, but with traditional width. This configuration, although it may not be as effective in terms of folding, is indicated for users who prefer a more... Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 12 / 30 11 / 12 narrow and traditional, yet offering good overall flexibility and malleability in the upper part.

[38] Figure 07-A illustrates a new version with a fully flexible sole (01) and an upper (02) with more than two flex points (03) distributed from the metatarsal, which involves the plantar arch and toe region and a barefoot design. This design may continue with the ankle and heel region more rigid / reinforced, but already presents an increased flexibility and a more malleable version in the lower part, given that here the sole is already fully flexible from the metatarsal region.

[39] Figure 07-B represents a variation of the previous version, but with traditional width. This configuration, although it may not be as effective in terms of folding, is indicated for users who prefer a narrower and more traditional fit, but with good flexibility and greater malleability at the bottom.

[40] Figure 08-A presents a version without flex points, given that the sole (01) and upper (02) are fully flexible, or at least from the metatarsal region, and barefoot design. This configuration offers maximum adaptation to the terrain, ideal for players who prioritize the feeling of total freedom of movement, being, therefore, the most flexible and malleable version, providing the closest to the feeling of “playing barefoot” in the design, without prejudice to the heel and / or ankle region being, at the manufacturer's discretion, more rigid / reinforced, as, as already mentioned, it will not affect flexibility.

[41] Figure 08-B represents a variation of the previous version, with a fully flexible sole (01) and upper (02), but in traditional width. This configuration combines flexibility with a firm and narrow fit, ideal for users who want the mobility provided by total flexibility, while maintaining a more conventional shape.

[42] Finally, it is important to highlight that, according to the patentability rules, nothing prevents small alterations / modifications and / or functional adaptations from being made for better performance or comfort of the boots, without altering their essence or removing their aspect of singularity / uniqueness, which are clearly substantiated in Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 13 / 30 12 / 12 list of claims, it being understood that the terminology used was not intended to be limiting. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 14 / 30

Claims

1 / 3 CLAIMS 1 - FOOTBALL BOOT WITH SOLE AND UPPER WITH TWO FLEXION POINTS (BAREFOOT VERSION), characterized by being a football boot according to Figure 02-A, which presents the difference of having a sole (01) and upper (02) with two flexion points (03), strategically positioned and aligned in the metatarsophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints of the toes, allowing the "claw" movement, and otherwise composed of common items such as cleats (04), boot (05) in the ankle region, preferably elevated in the Achilles tendon area, a heel counter (06) internally lined with soft material and externally more rigid, laces (07) preferably positioned on the side and with reduced extension, being under an elastic piece (08) that follows the reduced extension of the laces (07), and a barefoot version of the boot (wider in the front part), synergistically adjusted to the flexion points (03) to enable the gripping movement. 2 - SOLE AND UPPER WITH TWO FLEXION POINTS (TRADITIONAL WIDTH) characterized by being a football boot dependent on claim 01 because, according to figure 02-B, it has the same characteristics as it, but this time in a traditional version, without being wider at the front as in the barefoot version. 3 - SOLE WITH TWO FLEXION POINTS AND FLEXIBLE UPPER (BAREFOOT VERSION) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 01 as it has the same characteristics, but in this case, according to Figure 03-A, the upper part of the upper (02) does not have flexion points (03) since it is entirely made of flexible material. 4 - SOLE WITH TWO FLEXION POINTS AND FLEXIBLE UPPER (TRADITIONAL WIDTH) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 03 because, according to figure 03-B, it has the same characteristics, but this time in a traditional version, without being wider at the front as in the barefoot version. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 15 / 30 2 / 3 5 - FLEXIBLE SOLE AND UPPER WITH TWO FLEXION POINTS (BAREFOOT VERSION) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 01 as it has the same characteristics, however, in this case, according to Figure 04-A, the sole part (01) does not have flexion points (03) as it is entirely made of flexible material, 6 - FLEXIBLE SOLE AND UPPER WITH TWO FLEXION POINTS (TRADITIONAL WIDTH) characterized by being a football boot dependent on claim 05 as it has the same characteristics, but in this case, according to Figure 04-B in a traditional version, without being wider at the front as in the barefoot version. 7 - SOLE AND UPPER WITH MORE THAN TWO FLEXION POINTS (BAREFOOT VERSION) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 01 as it has the same characteristics, but in this case, according to figure 05-A, it has more than two flexion points (03), all perfectly aligned between sole (01) and upper (02) distributed from the metatarsal region, which involves the plantar arch and the toes. 8 - SOLE AND UPPER WITH MORE THAN TWO FLEXION POINTS (TRADITIONAL WIDTH) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 07, as it has the same characteristics as the same, but this time, according to Figure 05-B, in a traditional version, without being wider at the front as in the barefoot version. 9 - SOLE WITH MORE THAN TWO FLEXION POINTS AND FLEXIBLE UPPER (BAREFOOT VERSION) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 07 as it has the same characteristics as the same, but this time, according to Figure 06-A, the upper (02) will be either totally flexible or at least flexible from the ankle without counting specific flexion points. 10 - SOLE WITH MORE THAN TWO FLEXION POINTS AND FLEXIBLE UPPER (TRADITIONAL WIDTH) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 09 as it has the same characteristics as the same, but this time, according to Figure 06-B in Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 16 / 30 3 / 3, traditional version, without being wider in the front as in the barefoot version. 11 - FLEXIBLE SOLE AND UPPER WITH MORE THAN TWO FLEXION POINTS (BAREFOOT VERSION) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 05 as it presents the same characteristics as this, but this time, according to Figure 07-A the upper (02) will have more than two flexion points (03). 12 - FLEXIBLE SOLE AND UPPER WITH MORE THAN TWO FLEXION POINTS (TRADITIONAL VERSION) characterized by being a football boot dependent on claim 11 as it has the same characteristics as the same, but this time, according to Figure 07-B, it will be in a traditional version, without being wider at the front as in the barefoot version. 13 - FLEXIBLE SOLE AND UPPER (BAREFOOT VERSION) characterized by being a football boot dependent on claim 11, but this time, according to Figure 08-A, the upper (02) will also be flexible, without the presence of specific flexion points (03), therefore in this version, both the sole (01) and the upper (02) will be either totally elastic / flexible throughout the entire length of the boot, and or at least from the ankle region and with the front part slightly wider (barefoot version). 14 - FLEXIBLE SOLE AND UPPER (TRADITIONAL WIDTH) characterized as a football boot dependent on claim 13, as it has the same characteristics as the latter, but this time, according to Figure 08-B, in a traditional version, without being wider at the front as in the barefoot version. Petition 870250054778, dated 06 / 29 / 2025, page 17 / 30

Images