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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group, II, claims 12 - 20 in the reply filed on December 3, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching for both groups together would not be an undue burden (response). This is not found persuasive because the different groups have been shown to have different classifications. This requires a different field of search and a distinct search strategy. The applicant has provided no evidence that the search is similar.
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 – 11 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The discussion of the fabric layers in claim 12 is indefinite. The claim recites that the “two fabric layers positioned up and down”, with a plurality of vertical yarns positioned between the “two such fabrics”. First, the terms “up” and “down” are relative terms. It is unclear what the fabric layers are up or down from. Further, are both fabric layers positioned in both an up and a down position? Or is one layer up from something and the other layer down from something. Further, the term “two such fabrics” is unclear because it is unclear if the claim is referencing the same two fabric or two other fabrics like the original two fabric layers.
The “cladding film” in claim 12 is indefinite. It is unclear how the cladding film surrounds the three-dimensional fabric. Does the entire three0dimensional fabric need to be completely wrapped or enveloped by the cladding film? What is “the ring of the three dimensional fabric”? The claim has not defined this term. The cladding film is described as having two edges “corresponding” to the two fabric layers. It is unclear what is required by the term “correspond”? Do the layers need to be the material or size? Or do the layers need to be in contact somehow?
The phrase “wherein the two fabric layers correspond to a surface of the vertical yarn in sequence” in claim 12 is indefinite. First, it is unclear how the term “correspond” is being used. How can a fabric layer correspond to a surface of the vertical yarn? Wouldn’t the surface of the yarn outer cylinder of the yarn? And how can the two layers correspond to the surface of the vertical in a sequence which includes a bonding layer and a combining layer. It is unclear how the sequence is being defined. Is the bonding layer and the combining layer on one surface of the three-dimensional fabric? Is it on both surfaces? Is it on the outer surface or the inner surface. The sequencing of the layers is not clear by the claim language. For purposes of examination the layering shown in Figure 2 is used as guidance. However, the claim does not specifically recite the bonding layer is on the outer surface of each fabric layer and that the combining layer is further outside the bonding layer.
The phrase “fabric tension range” in claim 13 is indefinite. It is unclear what a “fabric tension range” is defined as by the applicant. Further, it is unclear how the property is measured. The disclosure discusses tensile strength of the fabric. Does the tensile strength relate to the tension? What test is used to measure the tension range. Finally, is this the tension range of the fabric with before or after it is inflated. Applicant is claiming the fabric is not yet filled with air.
The phrase “a denier range of 100 to 1000 Dan” in claim 13 is indefinite. It is unclear what the term “Dan” means. A denier range would imply that the units should be denier.
The phrase “a filling per inch between 20 and 80 warp yarns per inch” in claim 13 is indefinite. The range is defined as the number of filling yarns, but the units recite warp yarn per inch. The warp yarns run perpendicular to the filling yarns. Thus, a range of filling yarns per inch should be defined in units of filling yarns per inch and not warp yarns per inch.
The phrase “yarn tension range” in claim 14 is indefinite. How is the “tension range” measured? Is the tension measured in the deflated or inflated state?
Claim 16 is indefinite. The claim recites that the vertical yarns are “first set in rows with the distance range”. Claim 14 recites that the distance between the vertical yarns in between 0.8 and 20 centimeters. Then claim 16 states that the vertical yarns set in rows is then distributed with a distance of 5 to 10 cm between rows. Are the vertical yarns moving in the woven fabric? Is the claim intended to just further limit the distance between the vertical yarns? The claim is interpreted as the 5 to 10 cm range being a narrowing of the original range and not the fibers moving within the finished product.
The term “viscosity” is indefinite. It is unclear what test is used to test the viscosity of the adhesive. Is the mixture measured during production? In the final product the adhesive has set and become a solid material. Is viscosity recited in the claim the viscosity reciting appoint of time during production when the viscosity was measured or the viscosity of the adhesive in the final product? It is unclear when the viscosity of the adhesive is measured and how it is tested.
The term “bridging agent” in claim 20 is indefinite. The disclosure and the claim fail to define what qualifies as a “bridging agent”. Thus, it is unknown what does or doesn’t meet the limitation of the “bridging agent”.
Claim 20 is indefinite. The claims states “the adhesive is selected from a group consisting of a polyurethane resin, 5phr to 70phr dimethylformamide, and 1phr to 50phr methyl ethyl ketone, with 0.1phr to 40phr of a bridging agent added, and the adhesive is formed by mixing a thermoplastic polyurethane resin with a bridging agent”. The phrase “selected from a group consisting of” suggests that each item in the group can be chosen as the adhesive. However, the group seems to be describing a composition of an adhesive and not a list of separate type of adhesives. Are these items a Markush group or should the adhesive include all the components recited in the group? For purposes of examination, a general polyurethane resin reads on the claimed invention.
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) 12 – 16 and 19 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202005014206 in view of Li et al. (CN 102285185 A) and evidenced by Weir (2003/0153221) and DE 3603538.
DE 202005014206 discloses a composite comprising an inflatable fabric having two air and waterproof fabric layers which form an inflatable chamber (Example 1). The fabric is made air tight and water tight to be inflatable (page 1, paragraphs 4 – 5). Further, the composite includes and upper fabric panel 1, a lower fabric panel 2, and threads 3, equivalent to the claimed vertical strands, that traverse between the two panels (Example 1). The fabric walls are coated with PVC or PU films or coatings to make the layers air and waterproof (Example 1). The composite also includes a border fabric 4 that runs around the edges of the panel and are bonded 5 to the upper and lower fabric panels (Examples 1). The border fabric strip is equivalent to the claimed cladding film. Further, DE 202005014206 discloses that it is known in the art to use different length vertical yarns to make a profiled surface with different thicknesses within the product (page 1, paragraph 4).
While DE 202005014206 teaches wanting a waterproof and airproof fabric with a PU film or coating on the fabric layers, DE 202005014206 fails to teach having a binding layer. Li et al. is drawn to coated fabric composites that can be used to produce inflatable products (abstract). The airtight composite includes a fabric layer bonded to a TPU film layer by a high-adhesion adhesive layer (abstract). The high adhesion adhesive layer is a polyurethane layer (paragraph 6). The end product can include flame retardant, antistatic, or color additives (paragraph 7). Additionally, the TPU film in example 1 has anti-UV properties. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a polyurethane adhesive layer to bond a waterproof and airtight TPU film layer, as taught by Li et al., to the fabric of DE 202005014206, since Li et al. discloses that the polyurethane layer is tightly bonded to the fabric layer by using an adhesive bonding layer. Thus, claims 12, 19, and 20 are rejected.
While DE 202005014206 fails to teach specific fabric features like warps per inch, fillings per inch, or distance between vertical yarns, DE 202005014206 does disclose that the spacer fabrics are known to be used in various end products such as surf boards, airplane wings, and water sports boards (page 1, paragraphs 3 – 5). While the prior art discloses general details of the woven fabric, the teachings do not discuss the woven fabric construction details because the inventors understand that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to design the fabric to meet the structural requirements. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to produce the spacer fabric different end uses based on known products. Additionally, it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to choose basic patterns for use in end products based on the desired properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these various end products require different strength properties and that choosing yarn deniers, warp density, filling density, and spacing of vertical yarns to create the claimed three-dimensional fabric. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to design the fabric with sufficient internal strength so that the fabric structure will withstand various forces and maintain the desired shape when inflates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose yarns with a denier range of 100 – 1000, between 30 and 100 warp yarns per inch, between 20 and 80 filling yarns per inch, and spacing of vertical yarns between 5 to 10 cm, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Further, with regards to the fabric tension of the fabric layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the teaching of DE 202005014206 and the prior art that the inflated structure is put under significant strain when inflated and will need relatively strong fabric layers and strong vertical strands to keep the fabric from tearing during use. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would use known products to choose strength properties and tension range for the woven product.
With regards to the length of the vertical yarns, DE 202005014206 discloses that it is known that different length can be used (page 1, paragraph 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to choose different length yarns between 5 and 60 cm depending on the end use. For instance, surfboards are known to be a few inches thick. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would make an inflatable surface to be a similar size to known surfboards. Additionally, it is known that the vertical yarns directly relate to the shape of the inflated product, as described in the prior art teachings mentioned by DE 202005014206, DE 36 03 538 and US 2003/0153221. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the would understand that the spacing between the vertical yarns should be limited to a relatively close distance to make the surface of the inflated article relatively flat. Thus, claims 13 – 16 are rejected.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202005014206, Li et al. Weir, and DE 3603538 in view of as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hiroyoshi et al. (JP H10102028).
The features of DE 202005014206, Li et al. Weir, and DE 3603538 have been set forth above. While the references teach using a thermosetting polyurethane adhesive layer to bond a film layer to the fabric surface, the references fail to disclose the preferred viscosity of the adhesive layer. Hiroyoshi et al. is drawn to adhesive composition using polyurethan resins. Hiroyoshi et al. discloses that adhesive composition can be produced with a wide variety of viscosities, ranging as high as 27000 (Examples 1 – 7, English Translation pages 7 – 8). Further, Hiroyoshi et al. discloses that the polyurethane resin obtained in the examples is mixed with methyl ether ketone and acetone (pages 8 – 9). Further, the adhesive can include additives such as colorants and flame retardant, antistatic agents, antifungal agents, and narrowing agents (page 5, English Translation, Third Paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a viscosity up to 27000 as needed for the application. Thus, claim 17 is rejected. Additionally, Hiroyoshi et al. discloses that it is known to mix polyurethane adhesives in compounds such as acetone and methyl ether ketone. Thus, claims 18 is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
jlj
February 21, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789