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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/650,679, for an INFLATABLE SEATING APPARATUS, filed on 4/30/2024. Claims 1-70 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs. 1A-2B, 5A, 5B and 6) in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 69 is 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.
Claim 69 recites the limitation "the first upper surfaces" (plural) therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 46, 48-50, 52, 54, 55, 57 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silvia (U.S. Pat. 6,045,423).
Regarding claim 46, Silvia teaches a seating apparatus comprising, a first buoyant panel providing an arm-rest assembly having a first arm-rest portion with a forward end and a rear end, a second arm-rest portion with a forward end and a rear end, and a cross-member portion bridging the rear end of the first arm-rest portion and the rear end of the second arm-rest portion; a seat-back supported on an inner side surface of the cross-member portion and between the first arm-rest portion and the second arm-rest portion so that the forward end of the first arm-rest portion and the forward end of the second arm-rest portion extend forward from opposite sides the seat-back; and a seat-bottom suspended below the first buoyant panel (see Fig. 5) and between the first arm-rest portion and the second arm-rest portion; wherein the first arm-rest portion, the second arm-rest portion and the cross-member portion collectively comprise a continuous planar upper surface.
[AltContent: textbox (angle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Planar forward surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd arm rest portion)][AltContent: textbox (Rear end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cross member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Seat back)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Seat bottom)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Forward end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rear end)][AltContent: textbox (1st arm rest portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
502
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Forward end)]
Regarding claim 48, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the seat-back has a planar forward surface; the seat-bottom has a planar upper surface; and an angle between the planar forward surface of the seat-back and the planar upper surface of the seat-bottom is greater than 90° (see figure above where angle is based on folding of member (36)).
Regarding claim 49, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 48, wherein the seat-bottom is suspended below the first buoyant panel and between the first arm-rest portion and the second arm-rest portion by a plurality of flexible suspension elements (26, 35).
Regarding claim 50, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 49, wherein the plurality of flexible
suspension elements comprise a first forward suspension element (left member 26) suspending from the first arm-rest portion, a second forward suspension element suspending from the second arm-rest portion (right member 26), and a rear suspension element (35) suspending from the first buoyant panel.
Regarding claim 52, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 49, wherein the plurality of flexible
suspension elements comprise a first forward suspension element suspending from the first arm-
rest portion (left member 26), a second forward suspension element suspending from the second arm-rest portion (right member 26), and a rear suspension element suspending from the seat-back (35, 36).
Regarding claim 54, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the seat-bottom is
suspended below the first buoyant panel and between the first arm-rest portion and the second arm-rest portion by a plurality of flexible suspension elements (26, 35).
Regarding claim 55, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 54, wherein the plurality of flexible
suspension elements comprise a first forward suspension element (left member 26) suspending from the first arm-rest portion, a second forward suspension element suspending from the second arm-rest portion (right member 26), and a rear suspension element (35) suspending from the first buoyant panel.
Regarding claim 57, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 54, wherein the plurality of flexible
suspension elements comprise a first forward suspension element suspending from the first arm-
rest portion (left member 26), a second forward suspension element suspending from the second arm-rest portion (right member 26), and a rear suspension element suspending from the seat-back (35, 36).
Regarding claim 61, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the seat-back is pivotally mounted to the inner side surface of the cross-member portion (at 42, Fig. 12).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 47, 51, 53, 56 and 58-60, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Silvia (U.S. Pat. 6,045,423).
Regarding claim 47, as best understand, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the seat-back is formed from a second buoyant panel; but does not teach that the seat bottom is non-buoyant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the invention of Silva where seat bottom is non-buoyant as purely aesthetic in order to create a study and stable apparatus that would nonetheless need to float when combined with the other members in order to properly function, and further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 51, 53, 56 and 58, Silva teaches the apparatus of claims 50, 52, 55 and 57, but does not teach that the plurality of flexible suspension elements are formed from a polymeric sheet material or the plurality of flexible suspension elements are each formed from a polymeric sheet material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the invention of Silva where a plurality of flexible suspension elements are formed from a polymeric sheet material or the plurality of flexible suspension elements are each formed from a polymeric sheet material in order to provide a durable and moisture resistant material, and further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 59, as best understand, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 54, wherein the seat-back is formed from a buoyant panel; but does not teach that at least one of the plurality of the flexible suspension elements or the seat-bottom is non-buoyant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct at least one of the plurality of the flexible suspension elements or the seat-bottom as non-buoyant as purely aesthetic in order to create a study and stable apparatus that would nonetheless need to float when combined with the other members in order to properly function, and further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 60, as best understand, Silva teaches the apparatus of claim 54, but does not teach that at least one of the plurality of the flexible suspension elements or the seat-bottom is non-buoyant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct at least one of the plurality of the flexible suspension elements or the seat-bottom as non-buoyant as purely aesthetic in order to create a study and stable apparatus that would nonetheless need to float when combined with the other members in order to properly function, and further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-45, 62-68 and 70 are allowed.
Claim 69 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 9924801, 6886204, USPub 2015/0289663, 2006/0163935 (inflatable seating)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights