DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 5, 2026 has been entered.
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 mounted to an internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner has been unable to find support for the limitation in the originally filed Specification. Examiner notes that the Specification clearly and expressly teaches a ‘captive rigid support plate’ being ‘mounted to an internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder’ (figure 4 – 8, element 505 or 405 being the ‘captive rigid support plate’ and element 205 being the ‘inflatable bladder’; paragraphs 67 and 73). However, there is insufficient teaching in the Specification for the ‘mounting’ of the ‘captive rigid support plate’ to the ‘internal surface of the inflatable bladder’ being “permanent.” The ‘mounting’ between the ‘captive rigid support plate’ and the ‘internal surface of the inflatable bladder’ could be done in a releasable manner, for instance, by a releasable snap connection or a reclosable pouch or pocket. Each of these possible embodiments would act to ‘mount’ the ‘captive rigid support plate’ to the ‘internal surface of the inflatable bladder’ in a manner which is not “permanent.” Regarding the limitation of the ‘rigid support plate’ being “captive,” Examiner recognizes that “captive” is commonly defined as “kept within bound” or “confined.” It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘rigid support plate’ can be mounted to the ‘inflatable bladder’ in a manner which is “captive,” or ‘kept within a given bounds’ and ‘confined,’ without the mounting being “permanent.” Again, the possible embodiments of the ‘rigid support plate’ being mounted by a releasable snap connection or reclosable pouch or pocket would allow the ‘rigid support plate’ to be ‘kept within a given bounds’ or ‘confined to a given area or position,’ without the mounting being “permanent.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Specification provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “a captive rigid support plate permanently mounted to an internal surface of the airtight material of the inflatable bladder,” as recited by claim 1. As explained above, Examiner disagrees.
Applicant first argues that “captive” requires the mounting of the ‘rigid support plate’ to the ‘inflatable bladder’ be “permanent.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner recognizes that “captive” is commonly defined as “kept within bound” or “confined.” It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘rigid support plate’ can be mounted to the ‘inflatable bladder’ in a manner which is “captive,” or ‘kept within a given bounds’ and ‘confined to a given area or position,’ without the mounting being “permanent.” A possible embodiments of the ‘rigid support plate’ being mounted to the ‘inflatable bladder’ by a releasable snap connection or reclosable pouch or pocket would allow the ‘rigid support plate’ to be ‘kept within a given bounds’ or ‘confined to a given area or position,’ without the mounting being “permanent.”
Applicant next argues that the Specification clearly and expressly teaches the mounting between the ‘captive rigid support plate’ and the ‘inflatable bladder’ being “permanent.” However, in each paragraph of the Specification that is cited by the Applicant (paragraphs 67, 24, 25, 41, 86, and 102), the Specification merely teaches the ‘captive rigid support plate’ either being “mounted” or “secured” to the ‘inflatable manner.’ While these teachings provide clear basis for the ‘captive rigid support plate’ being “mounted” or “secured” to the ‘inflatable bladder,’ these teachings to not require the ‘mounting’ or ‘securing’ being done in a manner which is “permanent.”
Applicant finally argues that the ‘inflatable positioning device’ of the Specification functionally requires the mounting between the ‘captive rigid support plate’ and the ‘inflatable bladder’ be “permanent.” Examiner disagrees. Examiner recognizes and understands the purpose of the ‘captive rigid support plate’ and the means by which the ‘inflatable positioning device’ operates. However, it is the position of the Examiner that the ‘captive rigid support plate’ could be mounted to the ‘inflatable bladder’ in a releasable manner, such as through a releasable snap connection or held within a reclosable pouch or pocket, and both the ‘captive rigid support plate’ and the ‘inflatable positioning device’ would operate as intended.
Conclusion
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