DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication of 5/4/2026. Currently claims 1-10 are pending and rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Harrison et al. (US 5,554,119).
Harrison (as in figures 1-12) discloses a balloon (such as 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220) for an inflatable structure apparatus, comprising: a plurality of balloon segments (such as 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220) arranged into an annular balloon structure and attached to each other (see figure 11), wherein the plurality of balloon segments form one inflation/deflation volume (see balloon tubing as in figure 11 interior of 210), the balloon forms a central fluid passage (interior 224), and the balloon segments comprise cylindrical balloon segments or spiral ring balloon segments (note spiral shape as in figure 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 2 and comprising a plurality of flexion sections (see 222 sections between the balloons) connecting the cylindrical balloon segments with each other, wherein the diameter of the flexion sections is smaller than or equal to the diameter of the cylindrical balloon segments (note diameter as in figure 11 where the balloons are not is smaller than where the diameter where the balloons are).
Concerning claim 3 and an annular balloon structure (see figure 1-8b) for an inflatable structure apparatus, comprising: a plurality of individual balloons (multiple 50/52 as in figure 8b for example) arranged into an annular structure and attached to each other wherein the annular balloon structure forms a central fluid passage (interior 58) and the individual balloons are essentially cylindrical balloons or toroidal balloons (note the balloons in figures 1-8b are donut or toroidal in shape), with at least one inflation/deflation port each (see figure 8b which shows an example of the inflation ports near 54 for example).
Concerning claim 4 and the interior volumes of the individual balloons are connected together (note the common volume 56).
Concerning claim 5 and a system, comprising the balloon as described in the rejection of claim 1 above and a shell (222) in the shape of a hollow cylinder (see figure 11 and 11a), entirely or partially covering the balloon segments (see figure 11-11a).
Concerning claim 7 and the shell is sized to compress or squeeze the inflated balloon segments such that they are deformed (see para column 15 lines 5-60 examiner is of the position that the materials of the shell 222 are elastic in nature and that the device states that it collapses when deflated and it is the examiners position that in order for the balloons to collapse when deflated the shell which is made of a elastic material would compress or squeeze an inflated balloon segment).
Concerning claim 9 and comprising a hollow shaft in the central fluid passage (note shaft such as 224 as formed in the central fluid passage).
Concerning claim 10 and with spiral ring balloon segments; and a balloon strap attached to the balloon (see material as on sheath 222 between the balloon segments or material around 240 which examiner is of the position are straps of material that hold the balloon segments together).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argue that the prior art fails to disclose a “"balloon segments ... attached to each other". Examiner is of the position that the prior art does disclose this.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., multiple balloon portions that are assembled into the annular structure and then attached at interfaces (e.g., via adhesive/solvent/heat) so as to form the claimed annular balloon structure with a central fluid passage.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner is of the position that Harrison does disclose a plurality of balloon segments (such as 210, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220) arranged into an annular balloon structure and attached to each other (see figure 11).
Applicant recommends applicant amend the claims to greater distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST (FLEX).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Tsai can be reached at (571)270-5246. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PHILLIP A. GRAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/PHILLIP A GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights