Shoe Insole with Localized Bending Stiffness

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing shoe sole designs fail to effectively manage different flexural rigidities in various areas, leading to uncomfortable deformations during use, as they do not clearly define or implement partial areas with distinct bending properties.

Innovation Solution

The design incorporates first partial areas with high flexural rigidity, arranged in specific shapes such as arcs or V-structures, and second partial areas with low flexural rigidity, where the second areas enclose the first, using varying thicknesses and materials, including reinforcing elements, to control deformation directions and prevent unwanted movements.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If the insole body is made with uniform material properties, then manufacturing is simple, but the sole element cannot provide differentiated support and adaptability in different foot areas

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to user needsVSAvoidinsole body structure
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The insole body is designed with spatially varying material properties, specifically different flexural rigidities in different areas. The first partial area has high flexural rigidity for support functions, while the second partial area has low flexural rigidity for adaptability, allowing each region to perform its specific function optimally

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The insole body is divided into distinct partial areas with different flexural properties. This segmentation allows the high flexural rigidity area to provide structural support while the low flexural rigidity area provides conformability, resolving the contradiction between support and adaptability

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Strength

If the insole body uses high flexural rigidity material throughout, then support function is improved, but the sole element becomes too rigid and uncomfortable for the foot

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesupport functionVSAvoidcomfort
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

High flexural rigidity is applied locally only in the first partial area where support is needed, while the second partial area maintains low flexural rigidity for comfort, allowing the sole element to provide support where required without being uniformly rigid

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The insole body is segmented into a high flexural rigidity region for support and a low flexural rigidity region for comfort, enabling the coexistence of strength and ease of operation in different areas

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Ease of operation

If the insole body uses low flexural rigidity material throughout, then comfort and adaptability are improved, but the sole element cannot provide adequate support and allows unwanted foot movement

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovecomfortVSAvoidsupport function
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

Low flexural rigidity is applied locally only in the second partial area where comfort is prioritized, while the first partial area maintains high flexural rigidity for support, allowing comfort without sacrificing necessary structural strength

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The insole body is segmented into regions with different flexural rigidities, ensuring that support and comfort functions are fulfilled in their respective areas without compromising overall performance

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

4Adaptability or versatility

If the sole element allows free deformation, then adaptability to foot shape is improved, but uncomfortable deformations such as upward warping occur

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to foot shapeVSAvoiduncomfortable deformations
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The first partial area with high flexural rigidity locally restricts deformation to prevent uncomfortable upward warping, while the second partial area with low flexural rigidity allows necessary deformation for foot shape adaptation, eliminating harmful deformations while preserving adaptability

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The high flexural rigidity in the first partial area acts as a preliminary counter-action against unwanted upward deformations, preventing them before they occur while allowing beneficial deformations in the second partial area

Inventive Principle:
Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Data Source

PatentEP3742918B1Sole element with defined bending stiffnesses
Publication Date: 2022.09.14 ADOMUS GMBH
  • EP3742918B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3742918B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3742918B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

The invention relates to a sole element that is introducible into a shoe, comprising a flexible top layer (1) for receiving a foot in a footbed (2), an insole body (3) having locally different bending properties, which insole body extends parallel to a top layer surface and which insole body (3) is joined to the top layer surface, the insole body (3) is in the form of a one-piece body extending over a first subregion (6, 6') and over a second subregion (7), which first subregion (6, 6') of the insole body (3) having a high bending stiffness is arranged in a plane adjacent to the second subregion (7) of the insole body (3) having a low bending stiffness, wherein the second subregion (7) is arranged in a manner at least partially enclosing the first subregion (6), wherein the first subregion (6, 6') is arranged in the region of the midfoot and/or in the heel region.