DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 5 and 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a captive rigid support plate permanently perimetrically mounted to an internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the limitation requires that the ‘captive rigid support plate’ be both “permanently” and “perimetrically” mounted to the internal surface. Examiner has been unable to find support in the Specification for the ‘captive rigid support plate’ being either ‘permanently’ or ‘perimetrically’ mounted to the internal surface.
Regarding the limitation of the “captive rigid support plate permanently ... mounted to an internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder,” Examiner has been unable to find support in the Specification for this limitation. The Specification clearly teaches the captive rigid support plate being mounted or attached to the internal surface (figures 4, 13 - 18; paragraph 67, 75 – 78, and 81). However, in each of these instances the Specification either expressly teaches the captive rigid support plate being removable from the internal surface (figures 4, 13, and 14; paragraphs 67 and 75 – 76) or “tethered” to the internal surface (figures 15 – 18; paragraphs 78 and 81), wherein the Specification teaches that the tethered captive rigid support plate can be moved away from the internal surface (figures 15 and 16). Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that the Specification does not teach the ‘captive rigid support plate’ being “permanently” mounted to the ‘internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder” as required by the claims.
Regarding the limitation of the “captive rigid support plate ... perimetrically mounted to an internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder,” Examiner has been unable to find support in the Specification for this limitation. Examiner notes that “perimetric” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “along a perimeter,” wherein “along” is further defined as “in a line matching the length or direction of.” The Specification clearly and expressly teaches that the ‘captive rigid support plate’ is distanced from the boundary of the internal surface by a given length of at least several inches (figure 4; paragraph 69). Examiner has been unable to find a teaching or embodiment in the Specification where the ‘captive rigid support plate’ is “perimetrically” mounted to the ‘internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder.’
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 1 – 5 and 8 – 11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the area comprising airtight material ...” in the sixth paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the “airtight material” to refer to the “airtight material” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second ‘airtight material’ which is separate and independent from the ‘airtight material’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘airtight material’ previously set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 5 and 8 – 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights