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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 2, 7-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagumyan et al. (US-10500429) in view of Scurlock (US-3851730).
Regarding claim 1, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses an airbag landing device (fig 1, 100) for absorbing an impact of a falling object (Abstract), comprising: an inflatable base structure (fig 3, 102) providing a base of the airbag landing device (fig 1), the inflatable base structure including at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber (fig 3, wherein 102/208 is separate and closed from 104/110/226) that is selectively sealed (fig 3 at least wherein attachment and detachment of the blower selectively isolates chamber 208 in a closed or sealed pressurized environment) to hold a first fill volume of gas to sustain the first fill volume of gas during use of the airbag landing device (fig 3, at least via 130); an inflatable top structure (110/104/220) disposed vertically on top of the inflatable base structure to provide a landing surface for the falling object at impact (figs 1 and 3), the inflatable top structure including at least one inflatable open-cell chamber (104) that is fluidly isolated from the at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber (fig 3) of the inflatable base structure and being configured to sustain a second fill volume of gas (at least via separate blower 131), the inflatable top structure including an air inlet (at or near 135) configured to receive airflow (bi-directional flow 218) into the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber and at least one vent port (at least 216 or a limited but continuous leak) configured to exhaust air out from the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber (at least via breather holes 216 and airflow 218 and/or col. 3, lines 15-23, wherein a limited but continuous amount of air is leaked and therefore exhausted); and a blower (131) in fluid communication with the air inlet (figs 1 and 3) of the inflatable top structure and being configured to inflate the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber and to maintain the second fill volume of gas during use of the airbag landing device (col. 3, lines 5-23); wherein upon impact by the falling object, the inflatable top structure exhausts a volume of gas from the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber through the at least one vent port to vary the second fill volume of the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber while the first fill volume of the at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber is held so as to be sustained (col. 3, lines 30-45 and fig 3 wherein 102 is closed from 110/104).
Regarding claim 1, Bauunyan discloses an airbag landing system having an inflatable base structure, including an embodiment (fig 3) in which the top and base are not in pressurized fluid communication and are separately inflated with respective blowers. Bagumbayan lacks wherein the exhaust air is vented to an environment external to the inflatable top structure. Scurlock teaches an inflatable fall cushion having vertically arranged upper and lower inflatable sections (1/2), with the lower section functioning as a safety backup/foundation (col. 16, lines 14-23) and the upper section receiving the falling body and releasing air through breather structures (41/42) to an environment external to the inflatable top structure (1) upon impact. Scurlock further teaches continuously operating a fan to reinflate the upper section following impact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify or combine Bagumyan’s separately inflatable top/base airbag arrangement according to Scurlock’s impact-venting arrangement at least in order to provide an upper inflatable section that releases air upon impact to dissipate the falling body’s energy while retaining a lower inflatable section as a safety backup foundation (Scurlock, col. 16 , lines 14-23).
Regarding claim 2, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses a top cover (fig 3, 110) disposed over the inflatable top structure (at least over and covering 104), the top cover providing the landing surface for the falling object at impact (fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses wherein the at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber (102) of the inflatable base structure is configured to sustain a first air pressure (fig 3 via 130) and the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber (104/110) of the inflatable top structure is configured to sustain a second air pressure (fig 3 via 131) that is lower than the first air pressure (col. 5, lines 1-18). In col. 5, lines 1-8, it is disclosed that the blowers 130 and 131 are of similar construction. Since the blowers are of similar construction and the volume of the closed cell chamber is smaller than the volume of the open cell chamber, it has been interpreted that the smaller volume chamber will have a higher pressure given the same source pressure.
Regarding claim 8, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses wherein the second fill volume (110/104) of the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber is greater than the first fill volume of the at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber (102, figs 1 and 3 wherein 104 and 110 are fluidly connected and isolated from 102).
Regarding claim 9, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses wherein the inflatable base structure (102) extends a distance beyond a periphery of the inflatable top structure to expose a section of the inflatable base structure (figs 1 and 3 wherein 102 has a peripheral bulge that sits outside of at least 114, fig 1 also shows elements 140/142 that also sit outside of the periphery of 114/110) .
Regarding claim 10, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses wherein the blower is configured to reinflate the open-cell chamber to the second fill volume after the airbag landing device absorbs the impact of the falling object (col. 2, lines 14-15).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Bagumyan et al. has been interpreted to disclose vents 216 and/or a continuous leak as set forth above but lacks wherein the vents are in an exterior wall of the top structure and of the valve flap type. Scurlock teaches wherein an inflatable safety cushion system (fig 1) for controlled deceleration includes flap type breathers 42 covering vents 41 for a controlled rate of air escape (fig 6, col. 14, lines 15-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ controllable flap vents on an exterior wall as taught by Scurlock as opposed to the continuous leak used in Bagumyan et al. at least in order to provide control of air flow to satisfy desired pressure requirements affecting the rate of air escape (Scurlock, col. 14, lines 15-37). Or in other words, for certain applications that require varying rates or air escape, i.e. different size impact loads.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagumyan et al. (US-10500429) view of Scurlock (US-3851730) and Wu (US-7530128).
Regarding claim 11, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses wherein the inflatable base structure includes an air inlet (134) but lacks an inlet valve, Wu teaches wherein an inflatable pad with recreation function comprises an inflatable base (2/13) and including an inlet valve (72/73) for sealing closed the at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber (4/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inlet valve of Wu with the safety airbag system of Bagumyan et al. at least in order to provide control of airflow coming in to satisfy desired pressure requirements for certain application, i.e. different size impact loads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 15-19 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, see p 4, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and the vent port under Bagumyan et al. has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Scurlock as set forth above.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Bagumyan et al. lacks wherein the inflatable base structure is sealed because Bagumyan et al. discloses wherein the walls of the chambers may be attached in such a way that permits a limited but continuous amount of air to leak from the air chamber when the base air mattress 102 and crumple tubes 104 are fully inflated, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Bagumyan et al. discloses a limited but continuous amount of air to leak in order to prevent “ballooning” or over-inflation of the inflatable structure 106, as is known in the art, it has been interpreted that since the chambers 208 are held under pressure, isolated from the outside environment and the adjacent inflatable structure, it is therefore sealed.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Bagumyan in view of Wu, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the combination would provide a controllable inlet wherein the valve opening can be varied to be set for differing pressure requirements yielding predictable results based on desired pressure and volume.
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/JAMES K HSIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
