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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23-27 and 37-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0059657 (hereinafter Clewell).
Regarding claim 23, Clewell discloses a fluid container (100), comprising a base (140) configured to fit within a predetermined volume (the volume of a bathtub) and comprising a bottom portion (where 210 is pointing in Fig. 2) and a side portion (where 140 is pointing in Fig. 1); and a side wall (150) joined to the base and defining a portion of an interior volume (see Figs. 1-3) of the fluid container, the side wall comprising an inner wall (see Fig. 3, inner wall on inflatable tubes 310); an outer wall (see Fig. 3, outer wall on inflatable tubes 310); a first inflatable air chamber (one of the inflatable tubes 310) defined by a volume between the inner wall and the outer wall (see Fig. 3); a second inflatable air chamber (a second inflatable tubes 310) defined by a volume between the inner wall and the outer wall; and at least one air valve (110) disposed on the outer wall and in fluid communication with at least one of the first inflatable air chamber or the second inflatable air chamber (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, the fluid container of claim 23, wherein the bottom portion and the side portion are one unitary sheet (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 25, the fluid container of claim 23, wherein the at least one air valve (110) comprises a first air valve (see para. [0015]: one of the valves 110 is couple to each of the four air chambers, distributed as separately fillable quadrants) disposed on the outer wall and in fluid communication with the first inflatable air chamber, and a second air valve (see para. [0015]: another one of the valves 110 is couple to each of the four air chambers, distributed as separately fillable quadrants) disposed on the outer wall and in fluid communication with the second inflatable air chamber.
Regarding claim 26, the fluid container of claim 25, wherein the at least one air valve comprises a two-way valve (see para. [0015]: intake/exhaust valves 110) configured to inflate and deflate the first inflatable chamber and second inflatable chamber.
Regarding claim 27, the fluid container of claim 23, wherein the base and the side wall are made from a flexible plastic material (see para. [0014]: 10-16 gauge vinyl is a type of plastic).
Regarding claim 37, Clewell discloses a pool (100) for a predefined volume (the volume of a bathtub), the pool comprising a base (140), having a bottom portion (where 210 is pointing in Fig. 2) and a side portion (where 140 is pointing in Fig. 1); and a side wall (150) joined to the base at the side portion, the side wall having an inner wall (see Fig. 3, inner wall on inflatable tubes 310) and an outer wall (see Fig. 3, outer wall on inflatable tubes 310), the inner wall defining an interior volume (see Figs. 1-3) and the outer wall defining an area substantially similar to the predefined volume (see para. [0002]), the side wall comprising a drain (see Fig. 2, the overflow drain on the side wall); and at least one upward force providing member (inflatable tubes 310) configured to retain the side wall in an erect position (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 38, the pool of claim 37, wherein the at least one upward force providing member comprises at least one inflatable air chamber (inflatable tubes 310) defined by a volume between the inner wall and the outer wall (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39, the pool of claim 38, wherein the at least one inflatable air chamber (see Fig. 3) comprises a first inflatable air chamber (bottom most 310) joined to the base at the side portion, and a second inflatable air chamber (the middle 310 on top of the bottom most 310) joined to the first inflatable air chamber.
Regarding claim 40, the pool of claim 39, wherein the first and the second inflatable air chambers are aligned in the side wall substantially vertically (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 41, the pool of claim 38, wherein the at least one inflatable air chamber is substantially continuous around the side wall (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 42, the pool of claim 39, further comprising a headrest (the top most inflatable tubes 310 is fully capable of being used as a headrest for the user during use) attachable to the second inflatable air chamber.
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) 28, 29, and 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clewell in view of US 2010/0235988 (hereinafter Pittman).
Regarding claim 28, Clewell teaches an inflatable liner (a fluid container as claimed), as discussed regarding claim 23 above, for the predetermined volume defined by a bathtub. Clewell, however, does not teach a predetermined volume is a truck cargo bed.
Pittman teaches an inflatable device (muti-purpose air mattress) for use in a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed, sport utility vehicle, for home, or other use (see para. [0005]) to allow the inflatable device to be more portable such as for camping and other outdoor-living (see para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure, the Clewell device, for use within a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed as taught by Pittman in order to provide portability of the Clewell’s device for use in the outdoor or camping.
Regarding claim 29, the fluid container of claim 28, wherein Clewell teaches certain areas (see Fig. 3: the areas about supports 320) of the container are reinforced with thicker gauge material (supports 320) configured to protect against sharp edges inside the truck cargo bed.
Regarding claim 32, Clewell teaches an inflatable liner (a fluid container as claimed), as discussed regarding claim 23 above, for the predetermined volume defined by a bathtub. Clewell, however, does not teach a predetermined volume is defined by a vehicle enclosure or semi- enclosure.
Pittman teaches an inflatable device (muti-purpose air mattress) for use in a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed having wheel wells (16), sport utility vehicle, for home, or other use (see para. [0005]) to allow the inflatable device to be more portable such as for camping and other outdoor-living (see para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure, the Clewell device, for use within a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed as taught by Pittman in order to provide portability of the Clewell’s device for use in the outdoor or camping.
The combination of Clewell and Pittman would obviously comprise the bottom portion of Clewell is further defined by a bottom of a vehicle enclosure or semi- enclosure as taught by Pittman; and the side wall would obviously include a recess (similar to recess 20 of Pittman) to accommodate a portion of the interior of the vehicle enclosure or semi-enclosure as taught by Pittman.
Regarding claim 33, the fluid container of claim 32 above, wherein the portion of the interior of the vehicle enclosure or semi-enclosure is a wheel well (wheel well 16) of a truck bed as taught by Pittman.
Regarding claim 34, Clewell discloses a fluid container (100), comprising a base (140) comprising a bottom portion (where 210 is pointing in Fig. 2) defined by a bottom of a bathtub enclosure or semi-enclosure and a side portion (where 140 is pointing in Fig. 1) joined to the bottom portion (see Fig. 3), wherein the side portion is defined by an interior surface of the bathtub enclosure or semi-enclosure; a first air chamber (one of the inflatable tubes 310) above the side portion and joined to the side portion; a second air chamber (a second of the inflatable tubes 310) at least partially above the first air chamber; and wherein the base, the first air chamber, and the second air chamber comprise an interior volume (see Figs. 1-3) configured to contain a fluid. Clewell teaches the fluid container for a predetermined volume is defined by a bathtub enclosure or semi- enclosure but does not teach a vehicle enclosure or semi- enclosure.
Pittman teaches an inflatable device (muti-purpose air mattress) for use in a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed having wheel wells (16), sport utility vehicle, for home, or other use (see para. [0005]) to allow the inflatable device to be more portable such as for camping and other outdoor-living (see para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to configure, the Clewell device, for use within a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed as taught by Pittman in order to provide portability of the Clewell’s device for use in the outdoor or camping.
The combination of Clewell and Pittman would obviously comprise the bottom portion of Clewell is further defined by a bottom of a vehicle enclosure or semi- enclosure as taught by Pittman.
Regarding claim 35, the fluid container of claim 34 above, wherein the combination of Clewell and Pittman would obviously comprise the side portion includes a recess (similar to recess 20 of Pittman) to accommodate a portion of the interior of the vehicle enclosure or semi-enclosure as taught by Pittman.
Regarding claim 36, the fluid container of claim 35 above, wherein the portion of the interior of the vehicle enclosure or semi-enclosure is a wheel well (wheel well 16) of a truck bed as taught by Pittman.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clewell in view of US 2016/0362904 (hereinafter Liu).
Clewell teaches all of the claimed limitations, as discussed regarding claim 23 above, except for the base further comprises padded seats. Attention is directed to the Liu reference which teaches an analogous fluid container further having a padded seats (202 and 204) in order to enhance the user’s experience (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to employ, on the bottom of the Clewell container, padded seats as taught by Liu in order to enhance the user’s experience.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clewell in view of US 2,838,768 (hereinafter Fischett).
Clewell teaches all of the claimed limitations, as discussed regarding claim 23 above. Clewell teaches a drain assembly (210) but remains silent as to the specific of a drain hole; a locking member disposed radially with respect to the drain hole; and a drain plug member configured to attach to the drain hole in a closed state, and attach to the locking member in an open state, the drain plug member further comprising a flap configured to improve grip and aid in transitioning the drain plug member between the open state and the closed state.
Attention is directed to the Fischett reference which teaches an analogous fluid container further having a drain valve assembly comprises a drain hole (36); a locking member (annular flange 26) disposed radially with respect to the drain hole; and a drain plug member (16) configured to attach to the drain hole in a closed state (see Fig. 2), and attach to the locking member in an open state (see Fig. 5), the drain plug member further comprising a flap (38) configured to improve grip and aid in transitioning the drain plug member between the open state and the closed state.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the drain assembly (210) of Clewell with a drain valve assembly as taught by Fischett, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
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 23-25, 31, and 37-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,301 B2 (hereinafter Ramos). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 23-25, 31, and 37-42 are claiming essentially the same elements that being claimed in Ramos.
Claims 23-24 are covered by claim 1 of Ramos.
Claim 25 is covered by claim 8 of Ramos.
Claim 31 is covered by claim 5 of Ramos.
Claim 37-39 are covered by claim 5 of Ramos.
Claim 40 is covered by claims 3 and 5 of Ramos.
Claim 41 is covered by claims 4 and 5 of Ramos.
Claim 42 is covered by claims 15 and 16 of Ramos.
Claims 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,301 B2 (hereinafter Ramos) in view of Clewell.
Regarding claim 26, claim 8 of Ramos fully covers claim 26 of the instant application except for the at least one air valve comprises a two-way valve configured to inflate and deflate the first inflatable chamber and second inflatable chamber. Attention is directed to the Clewell reference which teaches an analogous device, as discussed above, wherein the at least one air valve comprises a two-way valve (see para. [0015]: intake/exhaust valves 110) configured to inflate and deflate the first inflatable chamber and second inflatable chamber. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the air valve of Ramos with a two-way valve as taught by Clewell, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 27, claim 1 of Ramos fully covers claim 27 of the instant application except for the base and the side wall are made from a flexible plastic material. Attention is directed to the Clewell reference which teaches an analogous device, as discussed above, wherein the base and the side wall are made from a flexible plastic material (see para. [0014]: 10-16 gauge vinyl is a type of plastic). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the material of Ramos with a flexible plastic material as taught by Clewell, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 28 and 32-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,301 B2 (hereinafter Ramos) in view of Pittman.
Regarding claim 28, Ramos claim 1 teaches all of the claimed limitations but remains silent as to the predetermined volume is a truck cargo bed.
Pittman teaches an inflatable device (muti-purpose air mattress) for use in a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed, sport utility vehicle, for home, or other use (see para. [0005]) to allow the inflatable device to be more portable such as for camping and other outdoor-living (see para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the predetermined volume of Ramos with a truck cargo bed predetermined volume as taught by Pittman in order to provide portability of the Ramos device for use in the outdoor or camping.
Regarding claim 32-33, Ramos claim 1 teaches all of the claimed limitations, wherein Ramos claim 18 teaches the predetermined volume comprises an enclosure or semi-enclosure, but remains silent as to the predetermined volume is a truck bed.
Pittman teaches an inflatable device (muti-purpose air mattress) for use in a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed, sport utility vehicle, for home, or other use (see para. [0005]) to allow the inflatable device to be more portable such as for camping and other outdoor-living (see para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the predetermined volume of Ramos with a truck cargo bed predetermined volume as taught by Pittman in order to provide portability of the Ramos device for use in the outdoor or camping.
Regarding claims 34-36, Ramos claim 12 teaches all of the claimed limitations, wherein Ramos claim 18 teaches the predetermined volume comprises an enclosure or semi-enclosure, but remains silent as to the predetermined volume is a truck bed.
Pittman teaches an inflatable device (muti-purpose air mattress) for use in a predetermined volume such as a truck cargo bed, sport utility vehicle, for home, or other use (see para. [0005]) to allow the inflatable device to be more portable such as for camping and other outdoor-living (see para. [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the predetermined volume of Ramos with a truck cargo bed predetermined volume as taught by Pittman in order to provide portability of the Ramos device for use in the outdoor or camping.
Claims 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,959,301 B2 (hereinafter Ramos) in view of Liu.
Ramos claim 1 teaches all of the claimed limitations, wherein claim 11 teaches the base comprises a seat. The padded seats of claim 30 is not claimed in Ramos. Attention is directed to the Liu reference which teaches an analogous fluid container further having a padded seats (202 and 204) in order to enhance the user’s experience (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to employ, in the base of Ramos claim 1, padded seats as taught by Liu in order to enhance the user’s experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754