DETAILED ACTION
2nd Non-final Office Action
The Examiner of record has changed. After review, the current Examiner does not believe that claim 1 (as amended) is allowable. This second non-final office action supersedes the previous non-final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification amendment received 3/10/26 is entered.
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 18 and 19 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. The term “close” in claims 18 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is 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. The Examiner can recommend that applicant replace the word “close” with “proximate”.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furman (US Pat. No. 1,640,270).
Regarding claim 1, Furman discloses an inflatable costume (Fig. 1 below and page 1, lines 1-14), comprising: a main body (Fig. 1; noting the entire suit), wherein the main body comprises a head part and a body part (Fig. 1 below; noting this is obvious); the head part has a first inflation chamber, and the body part has a second inflation chamber; and a tightening device (Fig. 1 below; as annotated), wherein the tightening device is arranged between the first inflation chamber of the head part and the second inflation chamber of the body part (Fig. 1 below; noting this is obvious) and configured to fix the inflatable costume at a neck and shoulders of a user (Fig. 1 below; noting this is functionally possible given the structure) and the first inflation chamber is communicated to the second inflation chamber through a first opening (Fig. 6 and page 1, lines 60-70; noting all the cells are connected via openings, see specifically Fig. 6 below). It is noted that Furman does not specifically that the first opening is defined in the tightening device. However, as noted below, the Examiner construes the “tightening device” to be a portion around the neck arear that includes the strap and the latch for the strap. Also of note, the receiving latch portion is attach on the exterior of the suit directly over an individual “cell” as also seen in Fig. 1 below. As can also be seen in Fig. 6 below, each cell is adjoined to other adjacent cells by “openings”. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that since a portion of the tightening device lies directly over an individual cell, and each individual cell is connected to the other cells via openings, then a first opening can be considered to be defined in the tightening device as shown and explained in Figs. 1 and 6 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Furman discloses the tightening device comprises a barrier layer connected to the main body (Fig. 6 above; noting the “barrier layer” is connected to the “main body” because it is inside it); the first opening is defined in the barrier layer (Fig. 6 above; noting this is obvious); and the first opening is configured to sleeve around the neck of the user to position the barrier layer at the neck and the shoulders of the user (Fig. 1 and 6 above; the Examiner believing that this is obvious and functionally possible given annotated figures below, and the Examiner taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of “configured to sleeve around the neck of the user”; noting the opening would be involved in a structure that is a sleeved around the neck via the strap and its corresponding fastener).
Regarding claim 7, Furman discloses that the barrier layer further has at least one air hole independent from the first opening; and the first inflation chamber, the air hole, and the second inflation chamber are communicated to each other in sequence (Fig. 6 above; noting this is obvious based on annotation).
Regarding claim 8, Furman discloses that the barrier layer defines a plurality of air holes, and the plurality of air holes are arranged around the first opening (Fig. 6 above; noting this is obvious and the Examiner takes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “arranged around”).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that Furman does not specifically disclose that an air blasting component, wherein the air blasting component is detachably connected to the main body; and the air blasting component is configured to inflate the head part and the body part to fill the first inflation chamber and the second inflation chamber with air. However, Furman clearly discloses an a single air inlet on the front of the suit (Fig. 1 above, item 13) and inflation of the suit (page 1, lines 1-14). In addition, the Examiner takes official notice that manual or automatic air pumps are well-known to inflate objects (see for example, Hsu (US Pub. No. 2008/0318490 A1, used directly below and evidencing the official notice)). Also, as clearly seen in Furman: Fig. 1 above, the pump is not attached making obvious “detachably connected”. In summary, using a manual or automatic pump to detachably connect to inlet 13 to inflate the suit would be obvious and well-known to a POSA.
Regarding claim 20, it is noted that Furman does not specifically disclose that the main body and the tightening device are both made of a polyester fiber material. However, Furman discloses making the main body and tightening device from “canvas or other flexible material” (page 1, lines 85-89). In addition, regarding using polyester fiber material, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific material used for the main body and tightening device could be selected based on its durability, ability to inflate, and flexibility.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furman (US Pat. No. 1,640,270) in view of Hsu (US Pub. No. 2008/0318490 A1).
For claims 10-13, the Examiner sees no real criticality for the air pump design (i.e. “air blasting component”). Especially since, claim 9 makes clear that it is “detachably connected” (i.e. can be removed). Hsu evidences and makes obvious the use of an air blasting component (Fig. 1). The unit has mesh to prevent debris from entering the fan used in conjunction with an air entrance, air chamber, and air exit (claim 10). Connection of the air blasting unit (inflator) “assembled” to inflate the suit of Furman would be obvious and functionally possible for a POSA (claim 11). For claim 12, the Examiner sees no criticality for “mesh pressing and fixed ring” being “detachably screwed to each other”. For claim 13, an automated air pump would obviously need power via battery or plug-in. A recharging unit to recharge the power supply within the air pump would be obvious to a POSA and the Examiner takes Official Notice that recharging units are well-known to a POSA.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furman (US Pat. No. 1,640,270) in view of Chen (US Pat. No. 6,708,927 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Furman discloses that the head part is further provided with a transparent window; and the transparent window is located at one end close to the tightening device (Fig. 6 above; the Examiner construe “transparent window” under a broadest reasonable interpretation to simply be an opening in the head portion). It is noted that Furman does not specifically disclose that the main body is further provided with a zipper device; the zipper device is arranged on the body part. However, Furman discloses the use of what appear to be buckle or button fasteners used in the main body (Fig. 1 above). In addition, Chen discloses a similar suit wherein the main body is further provided with a zipper device; the zipper device is arranged on the body part (Fig. 1, item 14) and the head part is further provided with a transparent window (Fig. 1, item 13). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Furman to use a zipper device on the main body and a transparent window in the head portion as taught by Chen because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a safety suit with buckle/button fasteners and a face opening a safety suit with zippers and a transparent visors) according to known methods (using the zipper and visor in the former suit) to yield predicable results (the continued ability to have a safety suit function as intended, the suit using a zipper fastener in the main body and a clear visor in the head portion).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furman (US Pat. No. 1,640,270) in view of Chen (US Pat. No. 6,708,927 B2) and in further view of Brand (US Pat. No. 693,996).
Regarding claim 18, Furman discloses the body part comprises two symmetrical arm parts (Fig. 1 above; noting this is obvious). It is noted that Furman does not specifically disclose
the two arm parts are respectively provided with second openings convenient for the hands to extend out; the two arm parts are respectively provided with second flexible sleeves at positions close to the second openings; and second elastic bands are arranged inside the second flexible sleeves. However, Chen discloses a similar suit wherein the two arm parts are respectively provided with second openings convenient for the hands to extend out; the two arm parts are respectively provided with second flexible sleeves at positions close to the second openings (Fig. 3;noting the second sleeves can be the portion by the hands). In addition, Brand discloses second elastic bands are arranged inside the second flexible sleeves (Fig. 8, item q). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Furman to use second openings for the hands to extend out as taught by Chen because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a protective suit with arm sleeves and a protective suit with arm sleeves and openings for hands) according to known methods (using openings in the sleeves for the hands) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a protective suit, the suit have sleeves with second openings for the hands). In addition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Furman and Chen to use elastic bands in the sleeves as taught by Brand because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a protective suit with openings for hands and a protective suit would openings for hands using elastic bands at the wrists) according to known methods (using the elastic band at the wrists) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to have a protective suit with sleeves and openings for hands, the sleeves having elastic bands at the wrists to ensure proper fitment).
Regarding claim 19, Furman discloses the body part further comprises two symmetrical leg parts (Fig. 1 above; noting this is obvious). It is noted that Furman does not specifically disclose lower ends of the two leg parts are respectively provided with third openings convenient for the legs to extend out; the two leg parts are respectively provided with third flexible sleeves at positions close to the third openings; and third elastic bands are arranged in the third flexible sleeves. However, Chen discloses a similar suit wherein the two leg parts are respectively provided with third openings convenient for the legs to extend out; the two leg parts are respectively provided with third flexible sleeves at positions close to the third openings (Fig. 3; noting the third sleeves can be the portion by the feet). In addition, Brand discloses third elastic bands are arranged inside the second flexible sleeves (Fig. 9, item l). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Furman to use third openings for the feet to extend out as taught by Chen because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a protective suit with leg sleeves and a protective suit with leg sleeves and openings for feet) according to known methods (using openings in the sleeves for the feet) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a protective suit, the suit have sleeves with third openings for the feet). In addition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Furman and Chen to use elastic bands in the sleeves as taught by Brand because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a protective suit with openings for feet and a protective suit would openings for feet using elastic bands at the ankles) according to known methods (using the elastic band at the ankles) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to have a protective suit with sleeves and openings for feet, the sleeves having elastic bands at the ankles to ensure proper fitment).
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 and 3-21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,464. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they essentially claim similar subject matter.
Claim 1 of the current application reads:
1. (Currently amended) An inflatable costume, comprising:
a main body, wherein the main body comprises a head part and a body part; the
head part has a first inflation chamber, and the body part has a second inflation chamber:
and a tightening device, wherein the tightening device is arranged between the first
inflation chamber of the head part and the second inflation chamber of the body part
and configured to fix the inflatable costume at a neck and shoulders of a user, and the
first inflation chamber is communicated to the second inflation chamber through a first
opening defined in the tightening device.
Claim 1 of the 12,115,464 application reads:
An inflatable costume, comprising: a main body, wherein the main body comprises a head part and a body part; and a tightening device, wherein the tightening device is arranged between the head part and the body part; wherein the head part has a first inflation chamber; the body part has a second inflation chamber; the first inflation chamber is communicated to the second inflation chamber; and the tightening device is arranged between first inflation chamber and the second inflation chamber.
As can be seen above, the claims claim essentially the same subject matter with only slight variations in language. The dependent claims are very similar in scope and are consistent with the above claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Assuming a terminal disclaimer is filed in conjunction with application 12,115,464 as outlined in the double patenting above, claims 4-6, 14-16, and 21 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.
With regards to claim 4, the prior art does not make obvious that “the barrier layer is provided with a first elastic band; and the first elastic band is configured to adjust a size of the first opening”.
With regards to claim 14, the prior art does not make obvious “the main body is connected to a storage bag; the storage bag is located in the second inflation chamber; the storage bag has a storage chamber and a storage opening; the storage opening is communicated to the storage chamber; and the storage chamber is configured to place the charging component”.
With regards to claim 21, the prior art does not make obvious “wherein the inflatable costume is shaped like a chicken, the charging component is arranged at the chest or abdomen of the chicken and the air blasting component is arranged at the buttocks of the chicken”.
Response to Arguments
Regarding priority, the Examiner assumes applicant still wants to claim priority back to CN Pub. No. 202420251656. As such, it is unclear why par. [0001] is removed from the specification?
With regards to the double patenting, the current Examiner thinks claims 1 of the ‘464 patent and current claim 1 are virtually identical. As such, the double patenting rejection is sustained.
Finally, with regards to the 103, the Examiner believes that claim 1 is obvious given Furman as noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
6/29/26
Prosecution Insights