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 § 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 14 and 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.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, the limitation “A recreational sports area comprising the airbag landing device of claim 1 for absorbing the impact of a falling object landing in the recreational sports landing area” is unclear. It is not understood what is encompassed by “a recreational sports area”. How is said area different from any other area? What is the difference between a recreational sports area and any other area?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bagumyan et al. (US-10500429).
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) configured 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 sustained (col. 3, lines 30-45 and fig 3 wherein 102 is closed from 110/104).
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 claim 14, discloses Bagumyan et al. discloses a recreational sports area comprising the airbag landing device of claim 1 for absorbing the impact of a falling object landing in the recreational sports landing area (col. 1, lines 23-25, wherein the range of applications (e.g., extreme sports, amusement, circuses, etc.) have been interpreted to take place in an area).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagumyan et al. (US-10500429) in view of 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagumyan et al. (US-10500429) in view of Scurlock (US-3851730).
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 for certain applications, i.e. different size impact loads (Scurlock, col. 14, lines 15-37).
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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 3, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the inflatable top structure further comprises: an inflatable upstanding wall portion that extends about a periphery of the inflatable top structure to define a central chamber, the upstanding wall portion including at least one air passageway in fluid communication with the central chamber; wherein the top cover is configured to cover the central chamber to form an air pocket therebetween; and wherein upon impact by the falling object, the inflatable top structure exhausts a volume of gas from the air pocket through the at least one air passageway.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein an inflatable top structure disposed vertically on top of the inflatable base structure, the inflatable top structure including an inflatable upstanding wall portion that extends about a periphery of the inflatable top structure to define a central chamber, the upstanding wall portion including at least one air passageway in fluid communication with the central chamber, and at least one inflatable open-cell chamber that is fluidly isolated from the at least one inflatable closed-cell chamber of the inflatable base structure and being configured to sustain a second fill volume of gas, the inflatable top structure including an air inlet configured to receive airflow into the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber and at least one vent port configured to exhaust air out from the at least one inflatable open-cell chamber; a top cover disposed over the inflatable top structure to provide a landing surface for the falling object at impact, the top cover being configured to cover the central chamber to form an air pocket therebetween;.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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