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
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant merely states that none of the provided references teach the newly amended limitations. In fact, when specifically mentioning Chai (the reference relied upon to teach the internal support beams) the Applicant mentions it does not teach the amendment and then switches to discussing their own Figure 2. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Chai teaches that one beam only connects to the top panel and another beam only connects to the bottom panel. This argument is moot as irrelevant. That limitation is not in the claim; the beams must only extend between the panels, but are not required to be commented to BOTH the top and bottom panels. The Applicant has not provided an argument that the combination would not render the claimed invention as cited previously.
Additionally, the amendments filed January 26, 2026 introduce new matter into the claims, which is being rejected below.
Therefore, the rejection over the prior art is being maintained below.
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the presented amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 each recite “with each end of each internal support beam being attached to an internal surface of the internal support wall” which does not appear to be supported by the specification. Applicant points to [0026] as providing support for these newly amended limitations. However, [0026] recites “the ends of the internal support beams 212 may be attached…” which does not provide support for the more specific recitation of the claim that each end of multiple beams are attached to the inner support wall. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the far end of the support beam system is attached to the inner support wall, but not multiple connections points which would be required for multiple beams and each end being attached. The specification also notes distinct embodiments of a single piece of material for the support beams or distinct beams, but neither of those embodiments are specifically mapped to the ends being attached to the inner support wall.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected as depending from a rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
As noted above, claims 1, 9, and 16 recites limitations that are not supported in the specification and therefore render the scope of the claims indefinite. The wording of the claims also make it unclear if the internal support beams are actually distinct structures, singular structures, and therefore, how they attach to each other and the internal support wall.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected as depending from a rejected indefinite claim.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) further in view of Santo (US Patent 4501036) in view of Chai (US Patent 10028591) in view of Liu (US Patent Application Publication 20150335164).
Regarding claim 1, Metzger teaches an inflatable mattress comprising: a top panel (Figure 1; 7) having an interior surface and an exterior surface; a bottom panel (Figure 1; 8) having an interior surface and an exterior surface; a plurality of outermost side panels (Figure 4; 11, 12, 13, 15) connected to one another and connected to and disposed between the top panel and the bottom panel to form an airtight chamber and define a mattress shape, each of the plurality of outermost side panels having (i) an interior surface, (ii) an exterior surface, and (iii) first, second, and third arc-shaped segments (Figure 7; 32), wherein the first arc- shaped segment and the second arc-shaped segment are joined together at a first vertex (Figure 7; 29, top), and the second arc-shaped segment and the third arc-shaped segment are joined together at a second vertex (Figure 7; 29, bottom), and where any two adjacent side panels of the plurality of outermost side panels meet to form a corner having an interior surface (Figure 4; corners between side panels 11, 12, 13, 15 as shown); and a plurality of internal support beams (Figure 7; 18, 19, 20, 21) disposed within the central chamber. Metzger does not teach an internal support wall attached to the interior surface of the top panel and the interior surface of the bottom panel, the internal support wall being air-permeable and forming a central chamber within the airtight chamber that has a shape generally equivalent to the mattress shape; a plurality of air-permeable corner support walls, each air-permeable corner support wall extending from the interior surface of a corner formed by adjacent side panels to a respective corner of the internal support wall; each internal support beam extending between the top panel and the bottom panel at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top panel and the bottom panel and each internal support beam extending between a first side of the internal support wall and a second side of the internal support wall. Lin 735 teaches an internal support wall (Figure 12; 5) attached to the interior surface of the top panel and the interior surface of the bottom panel, the internal support wall being air-permeable (Figure 12; 51) and forming a central chamber within the airtight chamber that has a shape generally equivalent to the mattress shape. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger and Lin 735 do not teach a plurality of air-permeable corner support walls, each air-permeable corner support wall extending from the interior surface of a corner formed by adjacent side panels to a respective corner of the internal support wall; each internal support beam extending between the top panel and the bottom panel at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top panel and the bottom panel and each internal support beam extending between a first side of the internal support wall and a second side of the internal support wall. Santo teaches a plurality of corner support walls, each corner support wall extending from the interior surface of a corner formed by adjacent side panels to a respective corner of the internal support wall (Figure 4; 24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santo (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with corner support walls and internal support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger, Lin 735, and Santo do not teach each internal support beam extending between the top panel and the bottom panel at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top panel and the bottom panel and each internal support beam extending between a first side of the internal support wall and a second side of the internal support wall, and the support walls being air permeable. Chai teaches each internal support beam extending between the top panel and the bottom panel at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top panel and the bottom panel and each internal support beam extending between a first side of the internal support wall and a second side of the internal support wall (See Figure 2; 21 and Figure 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls), Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Chai (directed to an inflatable mattress with angled support beams) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls, corner support walls and angled support beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so as to help spread out and distribute tensile or stretching forces applied to first connection sections with which the bands are jointed to an upper layer of material and second connection sections with which the bands are jointed to a lower layer of material” (Chai Column 1; lines 9-14). Metzger, Lin 735, Santo, and Chai do not teach the support walls being air permeable. Liu teaches making internal support walls air permeable (Paragraph 54). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Chai (directed to an inflatable mattress with angled support beams) and Liu (directed to an inflatable mattress with air permeable inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with internal support walls, angled support beams, and air permeable corner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to ensure “pressurized air flowing into the inflatable chamber 610 is permitted to freely flow from one portion of the chamber to an adjoining portion of the chamber during inflation or deflation, as illustrated by arrows 618 and 620. Further, the open cell structure of the mesh fabric 612 provides tension for maintaining the shape of the air mattress 600 as internal pressure increases, thereby preventing the air mattress 600 from expanding evenly on all sides, similar to a balloon.” (Liu Paragraph 54)
Regarding claim 2, Metzger does not teach the internal support wall is constructed from a single piece of material. Lin 735 teaches the internal support wall is constructed from a single piece of material (Figure 12; 6, as shown). . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Regarding claim 3, Metzger teaches forming rectangular side panels of a structure out of four different pieces of material (Column 4; lines 15-21). Metzger does not teach the internal support wall comprises four distinct panels, each panel comprising a single piece of material. Lin 735 teaches the internal support wall comprises four distinct panels, each panel comprising a single piece of material (Figure 3; 5, Examiner notes when applied to Metzger which teaches forming the panels of a rectangular shape formed of side panels out of separate pieces, this would be the case for the internal support wall as well). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Regarding claim 4, Metzger teaches the plurality of internal support beams comprises multiple rows of internal support beams (Figure 4; 18).
Regarding claim 5, Metzger teaches each internal support beam of the plurality of internal support beams is secured to the interior surface of the bottom panel via a first attachment strip and is secured to the interior surface of the top panel via a second attachment strip (Figure 7; 21 and 23).
Regarding claim 6, Metzger teaches each internal support beam of the plurality of internal support beams is a separate piece of material (Figure 4; 18 and Figure 7; 19, 20, 21, 23).
Regarding claim 7, Metzger does not teach the plurality of internal support beams is constructed from a single piece of material. Chai teaches the plurality of internal support beams is constructed from a single piece of material (Figure 2; shows several support beams which may be considered the plurality, being constructed from a single piece of material).
Regarding claim 11, Metzger does not teach each internal support beam of the plurality of internal support beams extends between the top and the bottom at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top and the bottom. Chai teaches each internal support beam of the plurality of internal support beams extends between the top and the bottom at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top and the bottom (See Figure 2; 21 and Figure 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls), Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Chai (directed to an inflatable mattress with angled support beams) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls, corner support walls and angled support beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so as to help spread out and distribute tensile or stretching forces applied to first connection sections with which the bands are jointed to an upper layer of material and second connection sections with which the bands are jointed to a lower layer of material” (Chai Column 1; lines 9-14).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) further in view of Santo (US Patent 4501036) in view of Chai (US Patent 10028591) in view of Liu (US Patent Application Publication 20150335164) in view of Karpov (US Patent 4541135).
Regarding claim 8, Metzger does not teach a first lateral support beam attached to an outer surface of the first side of the internal support wall at a first connection point and to the interior surface of a first side panel of the plurality of outermost side panels at a corresponding first connection point; and a second lateral support beam attached to the outer surface of the first side of the internal support wall at a second connection point and to the interior surface of the first side panel of the plurality of outermost side panels at a corresponding second connection point, wherein each of the first and second lateral support beams is approximately equal to a length of the first side panel. Liu 735 teaches a first lateral support beam (Figure 7; 18’) attached to an outer surface of the first side of the internal support wall at a first connection point and to the interior surface of a first side panel of the plurality of outermost side panels at a corresponding first connection point; and a second lateral support beam (Figure 7; 18) attached to the interior surface of the first side panel of the plurality of outermost side panels at a corresponding second connection point, wherein each of the first and second lateral support beams is approximately equal to a length of the first side panel (Figure 7; 18 and 6, and Figure 3; 6, is the length of the side panels, as shown). . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Lin 735 does not teach where the second lateral support beam is attached to the outer surface of the first side of the internal support wall at a second connection point. Karpov teaches the second lateral support beam is to the outer surface of the first side of the internal support wall at a second connection point (Figure 3; teaches support beams attached between outer sides and an inner support wall at four distinct points at 68, 72, 78, and 80). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Liu (directed to an inflatable mattress with air permeable inner support walls) and Karpov (directed to beams attached at four distinct points between an outer wall and support wall) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with internal support walls including beams attached at four distinct points, angled support beams, and air permeable corner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide an improved support system for the perimeter edges of an air mattress which does not have any of the undesireable "bubbling-up" effects.” (Karpov Column 1; lines 53-57).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) further in view of Santo (US Patent 4501036) in view of Liu (US Patent Application Publication 20150335164).
Regarding claim 9, Metzger teaches an inflatable mattress comprising: an outer chamber having: four sides (Figure 4; 11, 12, 13, 15), each side in airtight connection with two respective adjacent sides and forming a corner with each of the two respective adjacent sides, each corner having an interior surface; a top (Figure 1; 7) in air-tight connection with the four sides; and a bottom (figure 1; 8) in air-tight connection with the four sides; and a plurality of internal support beams (Figure 7; 18, 19, 20, 21) disposed within the inner chamber, each internal support beam extending between an interior surface of the bottom and an interior surface of the top and each internal support beam extending between a first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and a second inner support wall of the four inner support walls (Figure 6, the internal support beams at 18, extend in a length and width direction between the side walls). Metzger does not teach an inner chamber having four inner support walls, each of the inner support walls being air-permeable and attached to the top and the bottom; a plurality of air-permeable corner support walls, each air-permeable corner support wall extending from a respective interior surface of a corner to a respective corner of the inner chamber. Lin 735 teaches an inner chamber (Figure 12; 5) having four inner support walls, each of the inner support walls being air-permeable (Figure 12; 51) and attached to the top and the bottom. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger and Lin 735 do not teach a plurality of air-permeable corner support walls, each air-permeable corner support wall extending from a respective interior surface of a corner to a respective corner of the inner chamber. Santo teaches a plurality of corner support walls, each corner support wall extending from the interior surface of a corner formed by adjacent side panels to a respective corner of the internal support wall (Figure 4; 24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santo (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with corner support walls and internal support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger, Lin 735, and Santo do not teach the support walls being air permeable. Liu teaches making internal support walls air permeable (Paragraph 54). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Liu (directed to an inflatable mattress with air permeable inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with internal support walls, angled support beams, and air permeable corner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to ensure “pressurized air flowing into the inflatable chamber 610 is permitted to freely flow from one portion of the chamber to an adjoining portion of the chamber during inflation or deflation, as illustrated by arrows 618 and 620. Further, the open cell structure of the mesh fabric 612 provides tension for maintaining the shape of the air mattress 600 as internal pressure increases, thereby preventing the air mattress 600 from expanding evenly on all sides, similar to a balloon.” (Liu Paragraph 54)
Regarding claim 12, Metzger teaches each internal support beam of the plurality of internal support beams is secured to the interior surface of the bottom via a first attachment strip (Figure 7; 23) and is secured to the interior surface of the top via a second attachment strip (Figure 7; 21).
Claim(s) 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) further in view of Santo (US Patent 4501036) in view of Liu (US Patent Application Publication 20150335164).
Regarding claim 10, Metzger does not teach a first lateral support beam attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to a first side of the four sides; and a second lateral support beam attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to the first side of the four sides. Lin 735 teaches a first lateral support beam attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls (Figure 7; 18’) and to a first side of the four sides; and a second lateral support beam (Figure 7; 18) attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to the first side of the four sides. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Regarding claim 13, Metzger does not teach the first lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a first connection point, and the second lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a second connection point, and both of the first and second lateral support beams are attached to the first inner support wall at a common attachment point. Lin 735 teaches the first lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a first connection point, and the second lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a second connection point, and both of the first and second lateral support beams are attached to the first inner support wall at a common attachment point (Figure 7; 18’ and 18 (the upper and lower halves of 6) are attached between a respective upper and lower connection point on the four sides, and a common attachment point at the inner support wall (20) as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Regarding claim 14, Metzger does not teach the first and second lateral support beams each comprise apertures. Lin 735 teaches the first and second lateral support beams each comprise apertures (Figure 3; 61, 91). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) further in view of Santo (US Patent 4501036) in view of Liu (US Patent Application Publication 20150335164) in view of Karpov (US Patent 4541135).
Regarding claim 15, Metzger does not teach the first lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a first connection point and the first inner support wall at a corresponding first connection point, and the second lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a second connection point and the first inner support wall at a corresponding second connection point. Lin 735 teaches the first lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a first connection point (Figure 7; 18’ to 4) and the first inner support wall at a corresponding first connection point (Figure 7; 20), and the second lateral support beam is attached to the first side of the four sides at a second connection point (Figure 7; 18 to 4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger and Lin 735 do not teach the second lateral support beam is attached to the first inner support wall at a corresponding second connection point. Karpov teaches the second lateral support beam is attached to the first inner support wall at a corresponding second connection point (Figure 3; teaches support beams attached between outer sides and an inner support wall at four distinct points at 68, 72, 78, and 80). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Liu (directed to an inflatable mattress with air permeable inner support walls) and Karpov (directed to beams attached at four distinct points between an outer wall and support wall) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with internal support walls including beams attached at four distinct points, angled support beams, and air permeable corner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide an improved support system for the perimeter edges of an air mattress which does not have any of the undesireable "bubbling-up" effects.” (Karpov Column 1; lines 53-57).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) in view of Chai (US Patent 10028591).
Regarding claim 16, Metzger teaches an inflatable mattress comprising: an outer chamber having: four sides (Figure 4; 11, 12, 13, 15), each side (i) having first, second, and third arc-shaped segments (Figure 7; 32), wherein the first arc-shaped segment and the second arc-shaped segment are joined together at a first vertex, and the second arc-shaped segment and the third arc-shaped segment are joined together at a second vertex and (ii) in airtight connection with two respective adjacent sides and forming a corner with each of the two respective adjacent sides (Figures 4 and 7 as shown), each corner having an interior surface; a top (Figure 1, 7) in air-tight connection with the four sides; and a bottom (Figure 1; 8) in air-tight connection with the four sides; and a plurality of internal support beams (Figure 4; 18) disposed within the inner chamber. Metzger does not teach an inner chamber having: four inner support walls, each of the inner support walls being air-permeable and attached to the top and the bottom; each internal support beam extending between an interior surface of the bottom and an interior surface of the top at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top and the bottom and each internal support beam extending between a first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and a second inner support wall of the four inner support walls. Lin 735 teaches an inner chamber having: four inner support walls (Figure 3; 5), each of the inner support walls being air-permeable (Figure 3; 51) and attached to the top and the bottom (Figure 7; as shown). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger and Lin 735 do not teach each internal support beam extending between an interior surface of the bottom and an interior surface of the top at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top and the bottom and each internal support beam extending between a first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and a second inner support wall of the four inner support walls. Chai teaches each internal support beam extending between an interior surface of the bottom and an interior surface of the top at an angle that, when the inflatable mattress is inflated, is non-normal to the top and the bottom and each internal support beam extending between a first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and a second inner support wall of the four inner support walls (See Figure 2; 21 and Figure 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls), and Chai (directed to an inflatable mattress with angled support beams) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls, and angled support beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “so as to help spread out and distribute tensile or stretching forces applied to first connection sections with which the bands are jointed to an upper layer of material and second connection sections with which the bands are jointed to a lower layer of material” (Chai Column 1; lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 17, Metzger does not teach a first lateral support beam attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to an interior surface of a first side of the four sides; a second lateral support beam attached to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to an interior surface of a second side of the four sides; wherein each of the first and second lateral support beams is approximately equal to a length of a respective one of the four sides. Lin 735 teaches a first lateral support beam (Figure 7; 18’) attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to an interior surface of a first side of the four sides; a second lateral support beam (Figure 3, 6, and Figure 7, 18’, the top support beam attached to the second side wall) attached to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to an interior surface of a second side of the four sides; wherein each of the first and second lateral support beams is approximately equal to a length of a respective one of the four sides (Figures 3 and 7, 6 extends along the length of the sides). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Regarding claim 18, Metzger does not teach a third lateral support beam attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to the interior surface of the first side of the four sides; and a fourth lateral support beam attached to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to the interior surface of the second side of the four sides. Lin 735 teaches a third lateral support beam (Figure 7; 18) attached to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to the interior surface of the first side of the four sides; and a fourth lateral support beam (Figure 3; 6, and Figure 7; 18 attached to the second sidewall) attached to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls and to the interior surface of the second side of the four sides. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Regarding claim 20, Metzger teaches the first lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the first side at a first vertex of the first side and the third lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the first side at a second vertex of the first side, and wherein the second lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the second side at a first vertex of the second side and the fourth lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the second side at a second vertex of the second side (Figure 7; lateral support walls 25 attach to the vertexes of the outer walls as claimed). Metzger does not teach the first and third lateral support beams attach to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls at a first location, and the second and fourth lateral support beams attach to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls at a first location. Lin 735 teaches the first and third lateral support beams attach to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls at a first location, and the second and fourth lateral support beams attach to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls at a first location (Figure 3; 6 and Figure 7; 20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent 7089618) in view of Lin 735 (US Patent 7406735) in view of Chai (US Patent 10028591) in view of Karpov (US Patent 4541135).
Regarding claim 19, Meztger teaches the first lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the first side at a first vertex of the first side and the third lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the first side at a second vertex of the first side, and wherein the second lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the second side at a first vertex of the second side and the fourth lateral support beam attaches to the interior surface of the second side at a second vertex of the second side (Figure 7; lateral support walls 25 attach to the vertexes of the outer walls as claimed). Metzger does not teach the first and third lateral support beams attach to the first inner support wall of the four inner support walls at respective first and second locations, and the second and fourth lateral support beams attach to the second inner support wall of the four inner support walls at respective first and second locations. Liu teaches the lateral support beams attaching to the inner support walls (Figure 3; 6 and Figure 7, 18 and 18’ and 20). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress) and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with inner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better support the mattress top. Metzger and Lin 735 do not teach the first, second, third, and fourth lateral support beams attaching to the inner support walls at four distinct locations. Karpov teaches the first, second, third, and fourth lateral support beams attaching to the inner support walls at four distinct locations (Figure 3; teaches support beams attached between outer sides and an inner support wall at four distinct points at 68, 72, 78, and 80). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Metzger (directed to an inflatable mattress), and Lin 735 (directed to an inflatable mattress with inner support walls) and Santos (directed to an inflatable mattress with corner support walls) and Liu (directed to an inflatable mattress with air permeable inner support walls) and Karpov (directed to beams attached at four distinct points between an outer wall and support wall) and arrived at an inflatable mattress with internal support walls including beams attached at four distinct points, angled support beams, and air permeable corner support walls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide an improved support system for the perimeter edges of an air mattress which does not have any of the undesireable "bubbling-up" effects.” (Karpov Column 1; lines 53-57).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. Patent 11857078. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both relate to an inflatable mattress with outermost side panels including arc shaped segments, internal support walls, corner supports, and lateral support beams.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. Patent 11045012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both relate to an inflatable mattress with outermost side panels including arc shaped segments, internal support walls, corner supports, and lateral support beams.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. Patent 10582778. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both relate to an inflatable mattress with outermost side panels including arc shaped segments, internal support walls, corner supports, and lateral support beams.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TARA SCHIMPF whose telephone number is (571)270-7741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm 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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/TARA SCHIMPF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights