DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Francis does not teach a gas impermeable material. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Francis is not solely directed towards woven nylon, but instead, Francis suggests woven nylon as one possible material (“such as woven nylon fabric”), but does not limit to only woven nylon. Other materials taught by Francis are rubber and polyvinyl chloride (Col. 4 lines 1-50). Second, Applicant appears to have misunderstood the 4/17/2025 Office Action. As detailed on page 4, final paragraph of the 4/17/2025 Office Action, Examiner pointed to Francis elements 26, 33, and 32, which indicate that the inflatable chamber is Francis element 31. This, of course, is gas impermeable. Thus, Francis’s casing 21 was not part of the inflatable chamber because Applicant had used the limitation “encompassing,” which means wrapping around but not necessarily being integral to the inflatable chamber or inflatable interior volume. Applicant’s arguments against Francis’s stitching is unpersuasive because it is well known in the art that stitching can be air impermeable.
In light of Applicant’s amendment of “a flexible sheet of gas impermeable material forming an inflatable interior volume,” Applicant’s claim meaning has changed. Thus, a new rejection is made in view of US 4136412 to Wilhelm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, and 14-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4136412 to Wilhelm in view of US 3813716 to Francis and further in view of US 20140000040 A1 to Caminade.
Re Claim 1, Wilhelm teaches:
An inflatable mattress (at least [Abstract] “air mattress”) comprising:
a flexible sheet of gas impermeable material forming an inflatable interior volume, the flexible sheet having an upper external surface, an upper internal surface, a lower internal surface and a lower external surface (at least Figs. 1-3 element 1 and [Col. 2 lines 28-50] “an air mattress that essentially consists of two rectangular pieces of a transparent PVC sheet. At least the upper sheet 1”);
wherein: the inflatable mattress has a length and a width (at least Figs. 1-3); each chamber having an inflation port (at least Figs. 1-3 elements 9 and [Col. 2 lines 51-56] “The border bulges 5 and at least one of the air chambers 6 (in the exemplified embodiment both air chambers 6) are provided with filling holes 9 which are equipped with releasable check valves, and which permit the filling of the border bulges and the air chambers with air, as well as the discharge of the air after use”).
Wilhelm does not explicitly teach:
wherein the upper internal surface of the flexible sheet is joined to the lower internal surface of the flexible sheet in a pattern of join lines forming a plurality of inflatable chambers of the inflatable interior volume,
the length of the mattress is from 150 cm to 300 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 50 cm to 250 cm,
wherein said inflation ports are arranged to be permanently sealed once inflated.
However, Francis teaches:
wherein the upper internal surface of the flexible sheet is joined to the lower internal surface of the flexible sheet in a pattern of join lines forming a plurality of inflatable chambers of the inflatable interior volume (at least Figs. 3-4 elements 31, which the same element 31 is on top and on bottom, indicating that it is the same sheet),
wherein said inflation ports are arranged to be permanently sealed once inflated (at least Fig. 5 element 32 and [Col. 5 lines 40-47] “To seal the valve, one may merely reciprocate element 41 until surfaces 46 and 44 mate at which point air cannot pass either into or out of the inflatable tubular member. Thus, the camper can blow the tubular member up until it is fully inflated and maintain a positive pressure on the air inside the tubular member while reciprocating the element 41 to closed position with his teeth”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by Wilhelm with the permanently seal inflation ports taught by Francis with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a mattress with permanently sealed ports. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because “the camper can blow the tubular member up until it is fully inflated and maintain a positive pressure on the air inside the tubular member while reciprocating the element 41 to closed position with his teeth” (Francis [Col. 5 lines 40-47]). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to join the flexible sheet together “to provide the inflatable member” (Francis [Col. 4 lines 40-51])
The combination of Wilhelm and Francis does not explicitly teach:
the length of the mattress is from 150 cm to 300 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 50 cm to 250 cm.
However, Caminade teaches:
the length of the mattress is from 150 cm to 300 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 50 cm to 250 cm (at least [0087] “the length and the width of the cells 1 can be respectively in the range 60 centimeters (cm) to 100 cm for the length and in the range 7 cm to 16 cm for the width, in order to form respective mattresses of width lying in the range 60 cm to 100 cm and of length lying in the range 115 cm to 220 cm with sausage-shaped tubes disposed transversely relative to the longitudinal direction of the mattress”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm and Francis with the dimensions taught by Caminade with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a larger or small mattress. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because it allows a variety of mattress sizes to fit a variety of users more comfortably. Further, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Re Claim 2, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
wherein the inflatable chambers are elongate and extend transverse across the width of the mattress (at least Figs. 1-3).
Re Claim 3, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
Wilhelm further teaches:
wherein said inflation ports are aligned along a long side of the inflatable mattress so that the inflation ports can be sequentially sealed by passing that long side over, past or through a sealing element (at least Figs. 1-3 element 9).
Re Claim 4, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
wherein said inflatable chambers are adjoined by intermediate flexible portions, preferably wherein the flexible portion is non-inflated (at least Figs. 1-3 elements 4).
Re Claim 5, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Francis further teaches:
wherein the plurality of inflatable chambers are a series of at least ten adjacent inflatable chambers, each of said chambers extending across a width of the inflatable mattress, each chamber having an inflation port, and wherein the inflation ports are aligned along a long edge of the inflatable mattress (at least Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by Wilhelm with the air chambers taught by Francis with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a mattress with permanently sealed ports. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because “the camper can blow the tubular member up until it is fully inflated and maintain a positive pressure on the air inside the tubular member while reciprocating the element 41 to closed position with his teeth” (Francis [Col. 5 lines 40-47]).
Re Claim 6, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm and Francis does not explicitly teach:
wherein said pattern provides a longitudinal manifold on a long side of the inflatable mattress, said manifold fluidly joining the inflation ports of the inflatable chambers.
However, Caminade teaches:
wherein said pattern provides a longitudinal manifold on a long side of the inflatable mattress, said manifold fluidly joining the inflation ports of the inflatable chambers (at least Figs. 3A-4B and [0100] “the inflation device 14 via pneumatic connection means such as ducts and valves establishing communication between the inflation chambers 8 of all of the cells 1”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by Francis with the manifold taught by Caminade with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a mattress with manifold. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because it is “suitable for conveying inflation fluid (air, in practice) and, where applicable, for transferring it between the inflation cells” (Caminade [0100]).
Re Claim 7, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
comprising polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene furanoate, polyester, nylon, or polyvinyl chloride (at least [Col. 1 lines 30-40] “PVC”), preferably polyethylene, most preferably low density polyethylene (LDPE) (It is noted that “preferably” indicates optionality).
Re Claim 9, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
wherein the inflatable mattress is non-durable, preferably temporarily reusable, disposable, or single- use (at least [Col. 1 lines 1-25] “Such air mattresses are used in tenting and camping as support for sleeping, as a make-shift bed for overnight stay, or as a soft support for use while sun bathing. The use of PVC sheet as a base material for the fabrication of air mattresses maintains fabrication costs low and reduces the weight as well as the space requirements when in the collapsed state”).
Re Claim 10, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Francis further teaches:
further comprising a sleeve of flexible material dimensioned to retain a head end of the inflated mattress in a pillow format (at least Figs. 1-3 and [Col. 3 lines 52-55] “casing 21”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by Wilhelm with the sleeve taught by Francis with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a mattress with permanently sealed ports. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because “the camper can blow the tubular member up until it is fully inflated and maintain a positive pressure on the air inside the tubular member while reciprocating the element 41 to closed position with his teeth” (Francis [Col. 5 lines 40-47]).
Re Claim 11, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
according to claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Although the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade does not explicitly teach: A package of at least 10 inflatable mattresses, removably wound thereon, it would be obvious to duplicate and make separable the mattress to result in the claimed package. This is because it has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (MPEP 2144.04.VI.B) and “it would be obvious to make […] removable” (MPEP 2144.04.V.C).
Re Claim 12, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The package of claim 11 (detailed with respect to claim 11).
Although the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade does not explicitly teach: wherein two or more of the inflatable mattress are joined by a frangible line, it would be obvious to make integral with a line two mattresses because it has been held making integral is obvious (MPEP 2144.04.V.B).
Re Claim 14, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
as defined in claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Francis further teaches:
A kit of parts comprising an inflatable mattress (at least [Col. 2 lines 50-55] “elements are readily removable”.).
The combination of Wilhelm and Francis does not explicitly teach:
and a inflation device.
However, Caminade teaches:
and a inflation device (at least Figs. 3A-4B and [0100] “the inflation device 14 via pneumatic connection means such as ducts and valves establishing communication between the inflation chambers 8 of all of the cells 1”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm and Francis with the manifold taught by Caminade with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a mattress with manifold. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because it is “suitable for conveying inflation fluid (air, in practice) and, where applicable, for transferring it between the inflation cells” (Caminade [0100]).
Re Claim 15, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
A method of making an inflatable mattress according to claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
comprising the steps of: providing a flexible sheet of material having an upper external surface, an upper internal surface, a lower internal surface and a lower external surface; joining the upper internal surface to the lower internal surface to form a plurality of inflatable chambers (at least Figs. 1-3 elements 1-2 and 5-6 and [Col. 2 lines 28-50] “the upper sheet 1 and the lower sheet 2 are connected with one another by a peripheral uninterrupted weld seam 3. The opposite sides of the weld seam 3 are connected by longitudinally-extending, continuous weld seams 4, which define border bulges 5 from the air mattress. Longitudinally-extending air chambers 6 divide the area between the border bulges by means of additional, subdividing weld seams.”).
Re Claim 16, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm and Francis does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the length of the mattress is from 180 cm to 250 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 70 cm to 220 cm.
However, Caminade teaches:
wherein: the length of the mattress is from 180 cm to 250 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 70 cm to 220 cm (at least [0087] “the length and the width of the cells 1 can be respectively in the range 60 centimeters (cm) to 100 cm for the length and in the range 7 cm to 16 cm for the width, in order to form respective mattresses of width lying in the range 60 cm to 100 cm and of length lying in the range 115 cm to 220 cm with sausage-shaped tubes disposed transversely relative to the longitudinal direction of the mattress”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm and Francis with the dimensions taught by Caminade with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a larger or small mattress. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because it allows a variety of mattress sizes to fit a variety of users more comfortably. Further, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Re Claim 17, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm and Francis does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the length of the mattress is from 190 cm to about 220 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 90 cm to 200 cm.
However, Caminade teaches:
wherein: the length of the mattress is from 190 cm to about 220 cm; and the width of the mattress is from 90 cm to 200 cm (at least [0087] “the length and the width of the cells 1 can be respectively in the range 60 centimeters (cm) to 100 cm for the length and in the range 7 cm to 16 cm for the width, in order to form respective mattresses of width lying in the range 60 cm to 100 cm and of length lying in the range 115 cm to 220 cm with sausage-shaped tubes disposed transversely relative to the longitudinal direction of the mattress”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by Francis with the dimensions taught by Caminade with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results to arrive at a larger or small mattress. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because it allows a variety of mattress sizes to fit a variety of users more comfortably. Further, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Re Claim 18, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
wherein said inflation ports are aligned along a long side of the inflatable mattress, so that the inflation ports can be sequentially sealed by passing that long side over, past or through a sealing element (at least Figs. 1-3 element 9).
Re Claim 21, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
A method of making an inflatable mattress according to claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Wilhelm further teaches:
comprising the steps of: providing two flexible sheets of material having an upper external surface, an upper internal surface, a lower internal surface and a lower external surface; and joining the upper internal surface to the lower internal surface to form a plurality of inflatable chambers (at least Figs. 1-3 elements 1-2 and 5-6 and [Col. 2 lines 28-50] “the upper sheet 1 and the lower sheet 2 are connected with one another by a peripheral uninterrupted weld seam 3. The opposite sides of the weld seam 3 are connected by longitudinally-extending, continuous weld seams 4, which define border bulges 5 from the air mattress. Longitudinally-extending air chambers 6 divide the area between the border bulges by means of additional, subdividing weld seams.”).
Claim(s) 8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Francis in view of Caminade and further in view of US 20010042271 A1 to Pearce.
Re Claim 8, the combination of Francis and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade does not explicitly teach:
comprising at least 60wt%, based on the total weight of the mattress components, of thermoplastic polymer.
However, Pearce teaches:
comprising at least 60wt%, based on the total weight of the mattress components, of thermoplastic polymer (at least p. 2 Table 3 “Weight Percent A-B-A triblock copolymer 2% to 50% Plasticizing Agent 50% to 98%”. It is noted that it is obvious to use the claimed range of weight percentages, detailed below.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade with the claimed weight percentage of components because it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Re Claim 19, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade does not explicitly teach:
comprising at least 85wt%, based on the total weight of the mattress components, of thermoplastic polymer.
However, Pearce teaches:
comprising at least 85wt%, based on the total weight of the mattress components, of thermoplastic polymer (at least p. 2 Table 3 “Weight Percent A-B-A triblock copolymer 2% to 50% Plasticizing Agent 50% to 98%”. It is noted that it is obvious to use the claimed range of weight percentages, detailed below.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade with the claimed weight percentage of components because it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Re Claim 20, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
The inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade does not explicitly teach:
comprising at least 95wt%, based on the total weight of the mattress components, of thermoplastic polymer (at least p. 2 Table 3 “Weight Percent A-B-A triblock copolymer 2% to 50% Plasticizing Agent 50% to 98%”. It is noted that it is obvious to use the claimed range of weight percentages, detailed below.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade with the claimed weight percentage of components because it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Francis in view of Caminade and further in view of US 20070251190 A1 to Daigle.
Re Claim 13, the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade teaches:
An inflated mattress comprising the inflatable mattress of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
The combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade does not explicitly teach:
wherein inflatable chambers of the mattress are inflated to a gauge pressure of greater than 0.2 bar up to 1 bar and are permanently sealed.
However, Daigle teaches:
wherein inflatable chambers of the mattress are inflated to a gauge pressure of greater than 0.2 bar up to 1 bar and are permanently sealed (at least [0062] “pressure on the order of 0.5 to 10 psi”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mattress taught by the combination of Wilhelm, Francis, and Caminade with the pressure taught by Daigle with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because “a regulator (not shown) can be connected between the pump and the air injector to allow users to adjust the air pressure and, hence, the degree of firmness to which the cushions are inflated” (Daigle [0062]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673