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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the line and reproduction quality is very poor. The lines are blurry and not clearly defined. For example, it is impossible to determine in figure 3 where the lead lines for 601 and 602 end and which layer is 601 and which is 602. The same is true throughout the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110" and "120" have both been used to designate the same element, namely the second separation film layer. 110 purports to designate a connection hole, but points to the same structure as 120, which is the second separation film layer – and 110 does not appear to point to any hole whatsoever. See figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two air charging/discharging valves" in the second to last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the claim previously introduces “at least two air charging/discharging valves.”
The terms “close” and “away” in claim 4 and claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the side fender". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Davis (US PG Pub No. 20060021133).
Re Claim 1
Davis discloses:
An air mattress (see all figs.), comprising:
a mattress body (2), wherein the mattress body comprises at least a bed surface (e.g. the flat and planar top surface of 4), a first air chamber (37) and a second air chamber (35) are formed inside the mattress body (fig. 2), the first air chamber and the second air chamber are isolated from each other (via the one way valve when closed, see valve 31), the first air chamber is located below the bed surface (fig. 2), the second air chamber is located on an outer side of the bed surface (fig. 2, e.g. the upper outer side), and the second air chamber surrounds the bed surface (see fig. 2); and
at least two air charging/discharging valves (the openings 50 include valves, which are not shown – see paragraph 0023), and the two air charging/discharging valves respectively communicate with the first air chamber and the second air chamber (see fig. 2, see 0023).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US PG Pub No. 20060021133) in view of Karpov (US Patent No. 4541135).
Re Claim 2
Davis discloses all claim limitations, see above, including:
wherein the mattress body further comprises a bed bottom (bottom central surface of the apparatus or the interior surface of 6), the bed bottom is located below the first air chamber (see figs. 1-2).
Davis does not disclose:
a third air chamber is further formed inside the mattress body, the third air chamber communicates with the first air chamber, and the third air chamber is located on an outer side of the bed bottom and surrounds the bed bottom.
Karpov teaches a third air chamber is further formed inside the mattress body, the third air chamber communicates with the first air chamber, and the third air chamber is located on an outer side of the bed bottom and surrounds the bed bottom (50 and/or 52) for providing additional peripheral support to the mattress and/or the user. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Davis to include the teachings of Karpov above for the purpose of providing additional peripheral support to the mattress and/or the user.
Re Claim 3
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein the mattress body further comprises a side fender, the side fender is located on outer sides of the bed surface and the bed bottom, the side fender comprises a side fender film layer and a side fender cloth layer, the side fender film layer is located on an inner side of the side fender cloth layer, and an upper end and a lower end of the side fender respectively form a sealed connection to the bed surface and the bed bottom (see paragraphs 0018 – 0020 which disclose layered fabric with coatings on each side and note that the structures are arranged in the manner required by the claim, e.g. outer sides as claimed of top, bottom, and/or the sides in any combination or individually).
Re Claim 4
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein the mattress body further comprises a first separation film layer (5; see 0019), an upper end and a lower end of the first separation film layer respectively form a sealed connection to an inner side surface of the side fender (fig. 2), the upper end of the first separation film layer is close to the bed surface (upper end being the upper side which is closer to the bed surface, see fig. 2), the lower end of the first separation film layer is away from the bed surface (lower end being the lower side, see fig. 2), the second air chamber is formed between an outer side surface of the first separation film layer and the inner side surface of the side fender (fig. 2), and the first air chamber is formed on an inner side of the first separation film layer (fig. 2).
Re Claim 5
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein the first separation film layer is connected to the side fender film layer through hot melt (all of the layers are connected to each other; regarding the hot melt, this is a product by process limitation – see above for treatment of product by process), and the upper end of the first separation film layer is located between an upper surface of the bed surface and the side fender (fig. 2).
Re Claim 8
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein a fender reinforcement cloth is laminated on an outer side of the side fender (paragraphs 0018-0020).
Regarding lamination, note that heat sealing is disclosed. Regardless, the laminated recitation is considered product-by-process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [citations omitted] See MPEP 2113.
To the extent necessary, adding a fender reinforcement cloth would require a mere duplication of parts to add an extra layer for durability and would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re Claims 9, 16, and 17
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein the bed surface comprises a bed-surface base cloth and a bed-surface lamination film (0018-0020), the bed-surface lamination film is laminated on an upper surface of the bed-surface base cloth, the bed-surface lamination film and the side fender film layer are hot-melted to form a sealed connection (regarding lamination and hot melting, see the paragraph but also see product by process limitations as addressed above), the bed bottom comprises a bed-bottom base cloth and a bed-bottom lamination film (0018-0020), the bed-bottom lamination film is laminated on a lower surface of the bed-bottom base cloth, the bed-bottom lamination film and the side fender film layer are hot-melted to form a sealed connection (regarding lamination and hot melting, see the paragraph but also see product by process limitations as addressed above).
Davis as modified above does not explicitly disclose that “wires are disposed between the bed-surface base cloth and the bed-bottom base cloth.” Rather, Davis has baffles which accomplish the same function. Further, Karpov uses wires 30 or 45, see fig 5, for the same function. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date via simple substitution of one known part for another to modify Davis such that wires are disposed between the bed-surface base cloth and the bed-bottom base cloth.
Re Claim 11
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein a fender reinforcement cloth is laminated on an outer side of the side fender (paragraphs 0018-0020).
Regarding lamination, note that heat sealing is disclosed. Regardless, the laminated recitation is considered product-by-process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [citations omitted] See MPEP 2113.
To the extent necessary, adding a fender reinforcement cloth would require a mere duplication of parts to add an extra layer for durability and would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re Claim 12
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein a fender reinforcement cloth is laminated on an outer side of the side fender.
Regarding lamination, note that heat sealing is disclosed. Regardless, the laminated recitation is considered product-by-process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [citations omitted] See MPEP 2113.
To the extent necessary, adding a fender reinforcement cloth would require a mere duplication of parts to add an extra layer for durability and would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re Claim 13
Davis as modified above discloses:
wherein a fender reinforcement cloth is laminated on an outer side of the side fender.
Regarding lamination, note that heat sealing is disclosed. Regardless, the laminated recitation is considered product-by-process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” [citations omitted] See MPEP 2113.
To the extent necessary, adding a fender reinforcement cloth would require a mere duplication of parts to add an extra layer for durability and would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 10, 14-15, 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6 and its dependents, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. It is known to have individual chambers sealed from other chambers for separate inflation. It is also known, and far more common in the field, to have the chambers fluidly connected for simultaneous fill as that includes several advantages. The separation / connection of the three air chambers as claimed in combination with the required film layer limitations was not found in the prior art and does not appear to be obvious to try. It would require impermissible hindsight based upon the prior art of record to reject the claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. While generally using filters and cables ties is known individually in a variety of applications, their use was not found in the field of air mattresses with the required valve structure limitations. It would require impermissible hindsight based upon the prior art of record to reject the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Similar structures of air mattresses, valves, and pumps are provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673