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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the amendment to claim 9 now requires each of the limitations of the sheet of claim 1 and, therefore, the groups no longer have separate utility. The examiner concedes in that the amendment now requires the inflatable products of claim 9 to require each of the limitations of the sheets of claim 1 and the inventions are now no longer distinct as a combination and subcombination. The requirement of 05/19/2026 is withdrawn and claims 1-11 and 13-20 will be examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024 and 06/09/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 14 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 14 requires “wherein each of the plurality of tensioning members comprises a substrate layer comprising a first tensioning layer comprising a first polymer material and a second tensioning layer comprising a second polymer material, wherein a melting point of the first polymer material is higher than a melting point of the second polymer material.” However, claim 14 depends from claim 9 which further requires all of the limitations of the sheets of claim 1. The sheets of claim 1 require “a substrate layer.” As such, it is unclear if the substrate layer from claim 14 is the same substrate layer from claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is to be interpreted as the sheet of claim 1 (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0092]).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua (CN 107364147) in view of Schultze et al. (EP 0 800 916).
Regarding claim 1, Hua teaches a TPU dual temperature film composite fabric which are used for inflatable mattresses (“a sheet comprising: a substrate layer”) (Paragraphs [0004]; [0008]). The films are formed from a first TPU film (“a barrier layer comprising a first polymer material”) and a second TPU film (“a welding layer comprising a second polymer material”) which are prepared by a casting or a calendaring process and the melting point of the first TPU film is higher than that of the second TPU film (“a melting point of the first polymer mateiral is higher than a melting point of the second polymer material”) (Paragraph [0011]).
Hua is silent with respect to the first and second TPU layers being formed by converging in flowable states.
Schultze teaches films which are formed from a first TPU and a second TPU which resultantly have higher heat resistance and sufficient melt strength (Paragraphs [0007]-[0009]). The films are preferably formed from a co-extrusion method which provides a higher bond strength (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Hua such that the first and second TPU layers are formed via a coextrusion method, wherein both layers are in a flowable state, in order to achieve a higher bond strength as taught by Schultze.
Regarding claim 2, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the first and second TPU layers are joined in a co-extrusion method resulting in a higher bond strength as taught by Schultze. Furthermore, the methods of joining in a flowable state appears to result in the claimed intermediate layer of mixed materials (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0077]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical methods taught by Hua and Schultze would also result in an intermediate layer with a mixture of the first and second TPU layers such that the improved bond strength would require this layer.
Regarding claim 3, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the films are formed from a casting process between a first and second TPU film.
Regarding claim 4, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Hua further teaches the melting point of the first TPU film being 180°C and the melting point of the second TPU film being 120°C, resulting in a difference of 60°C (Paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schultze teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1 which include a first and second TPU layers which are joined via co-extrusion in order to achieve a higher bond strength, higher heat resistance and sufficient melt strength. Schultze teaches the first TPU layer having a hardness of 75-95 A and the second TPU layer has a hardness of 75-95 A (Paragraphs [0019]-[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Hua such that the first TPU layer having a hardness of 75-95 A and the second TPU layer has a hardness of 75-95 A providing higher heat resistance and sufficient melt strength as taught by Schultze.
Regarding claim 6, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The first TPU layer may have a thickness of 0.03 mm and the second TPU layer may have a thickness of 0.03 mm, resulting in a 1:1 ratio (Paragraphs [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The first TPU layer may have a thickness of 0.03 mm (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 8, Hua teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The films are then further provided with an adhesive and a fabric (“further comprising a fabric layer and an adhesive layer disposed between the fabric layer and barrier layer, the adhesive layer joining the fabric layer to the barrier layer to form a laminated sheet”) (Paragraphs [0016]-[0020]).
Claims 9, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austen et al. (US 2007/0214575) in view of Hua (CN 107364147) and Schultze et al. (EP 0 800 916).
Regarding claim 9, Austen teaches inflatable support systems such as inflatable mattresses (“an inflatable product”) (Paragraphs [0003]-[0005]). The systems include a top TPU sheet (“the sheet”), a bottom TPU sheet (“second sheet”), and a side gusset with coil structures which are welded to the top and bottom TPU sheets resulting in an inflatable airtight chamber (“an inflatable chamber defined by the sheet and the second sheet”) (Paragraph [0019]; Fig. 7).
Austen is silent with respect to the top layer being the sheets of claim 1 and being further provided with an adhesive layer disposed on the barrier layer and a fabric layer joined to the adhesive layer to laminate the fabric layer to the substrate layer.
Hua teaches a TPU dual temperature film composite fabric which are used for inflatable mattresses (“a sheet comprising: a substrate layer”) (Paragraphs [0004]; [0008]). The films are formed from a first TPU film (“a barrier layer comprising a first polymer material”) and a second TPU film (“a welding layer comprising a second polymer material”) which are prepared by a casting or a calendaring process and the melting point of the first TPU film is higher than that of the second TPU film (“a melting point of the first polymer mateiral is higher than a melting point of the second polymer material”) (Paragraph [0011]). The films are then further provided with an adhesive and a fabric (“further comprising a fabric layer and an adhesive layer disposed between the fabric layer and barrier layer, the adhesive layer joining the fabric layer to the barrier layer to form a laminated sheet”) (Paragraphs [0016]-[0020]). The resulting films have uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength (Paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
Hua is silent with respect to the first and second TPU layers being formed by converging in flowable states.
Schultze teaches films which are formed from a first TPU and a second TPU which resultantly have higher heat resistance and sufficient melt strength (Paragraphs [0007]-[0009]). The films are preferably formed from a co-extrusion method which provides a higher bond strength (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Hua such that the first and second TPU layers are formed via a coextrusion method, wherein both layers are in a flowable state, in order to achieve a higher bond strength as taught by Schultze.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the top layer of Austen from the films of Hua and Schultze which are taught to provide uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength.
Regarding claim 13, Austen teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the systems include coils which may further be formed from TPU (“a plurality of tensioning members disposed in the inflatable chamber” & “a top edge welded to the welding layer of the sheet and a bottom edge welded to the welding layer of the second sheet.”) (Paragraph [0019]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Austen teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 13. As discussed above, the coils may be formed from TPU.
Austen is silent with respect to the coils being formed from a substrate layer comprising a first tensioning layer comprising a first polymer material and a second tensioning layer comprising a second polymer material, wherein a melting point of the first polymer material is higher than a melting point of the second polymer material.
Hua and Schultze teach the films as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the films provide uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the TPU coils of Austen from the films of Hua and Schultze in order to provide uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength.
Regarding claim 19, Austen teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the systems include a side gusset (“lateral sheet”) forming the inflatable chamber (“wherein a top edge of the lateral sheet is connected to a periphery of the sheet, and a bottom edge of the lateral sheet is connected to a periphery of the second sheet, such that the sheet, the second sheet, and the lateral sheet jointly define the inflatable chamber.”) (Paragraph [0019]; Fig. 1).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2014/0265485) in view of Hua (CN 107364147) and Schultze et al. (EP 0 800 916).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches an inflatable device which includes a connecting strap attached to upper and lower layers in a wave-like pattern (Paragraph [0002]). The upper (“sheet”) and lower layers (“second sheet”) may be formed from any suitable material known in the art of inflatable products (Paragraph [0031]). The upper and lower layers form an inflatable bladder therebetween (“an inflatable chamber between the sheet and the second sheet”) (Paragraph [0031]). The wave-like pattern of the strap increases the tensile strength of the inflatable device when a load is applied (Paragraph [0043]).
Wang is silent with respect to the upper layer being the sheets of claim 1 and being further provided with an adhesive layer disposed on the barrier layer and a fabric layer joined to the adhesive layer to laminate the fabric layer to the substrate layer.
Hua teaches a TPU dual temperature film composite fabric which are used for inflatable mattresses (“a sheet comprising: a substrate layer”) (Paragraphs [0004]; [0008]). The films are formed from a first TPU film (“a barrier layer comprising a first polymer material”) and a second TPU film (“a welding layer comprising a second polymer material”) which are prepared by a casting or a calendaring process and the melting point of the first TPU film is higher than that of the second TPU film (“a melting point of the first polymer mateiral is higher than a melting point of the second polymer material”) (Paragraph [0011]). The films are then further provided with an adhesive and a fabric (“further comprising a fabric layer and an adhesive layer disposed between the fabric layer and barrier layer, the adhesive layer joining the fabric layer to the barrier layer to form a laminated sheet”) (Paragraphs [0016]-[0020]). The resulting films have uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength (Paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
Hua is silent with respect to the first and second TPU layers being formed by converging in flowable states.
Schultze teaches films which are formed from a first TPU and a second TPU which resultantly have higher heat resistance and sufficient melt strength (Paragraphs [0007]-[0009]). The films are preferably formed from a co-extrusion method which provides a higher bond strength (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Hua such that the first and second TPU layers are formed via a coextrusion method, wherein both layers are in a flowable state, in order to achieve a higher bond strength as taught by Schultze.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the upper layer of Wang from the films of Hua and Schultze which are taught to provide uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the devices as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the devices include a strap (“connecting sheet”) which is connected to the upper and lower layers in a wave-like pattern (“staggered”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austen et al. (US 2007/0214575) in view of Hua (CN 107364147) and Schultze et al. (EP 0 800 916) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Malcom (US 4,091,482).
Regarding claim 11, Austen teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Austen is silent with respect to the systems having a thermal insulation sheet comprising a polymer substrate, and a metal coating layer coated on at least one side of the polymer substrate.
Malcom teaches an air mattress with a plurality of webs of metallized plastic films providing for heat insulation (Col. 2, Lines 29-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the systems of Austen to further include a plurality of webs of metallized plastic films providing for heat insulation as taught by Malcom.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austen et al. (US 2007/0214575) in view of Hua (CN 107364147) and Schultze et al. (EP 0 800 916) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Cochran (US 6,346,319)
Regarding claim 15, Austen teaches the systems as discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Austen, Hua, and Schultze are silent with respect to the TPU layers further comprising polyamide of PET fibers.
Cochran teaches a flexible or resilient composite comprising a fibrous component in a polymeric matrix (Col. 1, Lines 10-15). The polymeric matrix may be a urethane and the fibrous reinforcement may be polyester fibers, such as PET (Col. 2, Lines 49-52; Col. 3, Lines 12-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the TPU coils of Austen to further include polyester/PET fibers as a reinforcement as taught by Cochran.
Claims 9, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 6,446,289) in view of Hua (CN 107364147) and Schultze et al. (EP 0 800 916).
Regarding claim 9, Su teaches an inflatable and deflatable mattress (Col. 1, Lines 5-10). As illustrated in figures 9 and 10, the mattresses include a top layer (“sheet”) and a bottom layer (“second sheet connected to the sheet”) which are both formed from an outer fabric layer and an inner thermoplastic layer sandwiching a foam core (“an inflatable chamber defined by the sheet and the second sheet”) (Col. 6, Lines 22-32).
Su is silent with respect to the sheets being the sheets of claim 1 and being further provided with an adhesive layer disposed on the barrier layer and a fabric layer joined to the adhesive layer to laminate the fabric layer to the substrate layer.
Hua teaches a TPU dual temperature film composite fabric which are used for inflatable mattresses (“a sheet comprising: a substrate layer”) (Paragraphs [0004]; [0008]). The films are formed from a first TPU film (“a barrier layer comprising a first polymer material”) and a second TPU film (“a welding layer comprising a second polymer material”) which are prepared by a casting or a calendaring process and the melting point of the first TPU film is higher than that of the second TPU film (“a melting point of the first polymer mateiral is higher than a melting point of the second polymer material”) (Paragraph [0011]). The films are then further provided with an adhesive and a fabric (“further comprising a fabric layer and an adhesive layer disposed between the fabric layer and barrier layer, the adhesive layer joining the fabric layer to the barrier layer to form a laminated sheet”) (Paragraphs [0016]-[0020]). The resulting films have uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength (Paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
Hua is silent with respect to the first and second TPU layers being formed by converging in flowable states.
Schultze teaches films which are formed from a first TPU and a second TPU which resultantly have higher heat resistance and sufficient melt strength (Paragraphs [0007]-[0009]). The films are preferably formed from a co-extrusion method which provides a higher bond strength (Paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Hua such that the first and second TPU layers are formed via a coextrusion method, wherein both layers are in a flowable state, in order to achieve a higher bond strength as taught by Schultze.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the top layer of Su from the films of Hua and Schultze which are taught to provide uniform quality and thickness as well as good peel/welding strength.
Regarding claim 16, Su teaches the mattresses as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above and illustrated in figure 9, the sheets are provided with a foam core connected to the sheets.
Regarding claim 17, Su teaches the mattresses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. The foams are provided with recesses and grooves (Col. 7, Lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 18, Su teaches the mattresses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Su further teaches “air spaces exist in the foam core so that the mattress can be expanded when a valve on the mattress is opened and deflated when the mattress is compressed and the valve is opened” (Col. 3, Lines 25-32). The valve is further taught top operate such that “when the valve 46 is opened, if the foam core is initially rolled or compressed and allowed to unroll or expand, air will automatically enter into the mattress. When the valve is closed, air will remain in the mattress even when an individual reclines on the mattress. Thus, the mattress has an air-impervious construction. Opening of the valve and compression of the mattress, such as by rolling of the mattress, will force the air from the interstices of the foam core outwardly and the air will exit through the open valve. When the valve is closed while the mattress is compressed or rolled, the mattress will generally retain that fixed, compressed or rolled state” (Col. 7, Lines 11-27).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this valve of Su would resultantly teach “the foam core disposed within the inflatable product is compacted to assume a smaller volume thereof by application of an external compressive force and expands upon removal of the external compressive force; the inflatable product is configured into a decreased volume storage configuration by: translating the inflation valve to an open position thereof; applying the external compression force to an external area of the inflatable product, thereby compressing the foam core and expelling gasses from within the inflatable product; and translating the inflation valve to a closed position thereof, thereby preventing external gasses from re-entering the inflatable product and retaining the foam core in a compressed state thereof by external air pressure acting on external surfaces of the inflatable product; and the inflatable product is configured into an inflated use configuration by: translating the inflation valve to an open position thereof, whereby an expansive force of the compressed foam core urges external gasses to enter the inflatable product; and translating the inflation valve to a closed position thereof after the inflatable product has expanded to a predetermined volume to maintain the inflatable product in the inflated use configuration.”
Regarding claim 20, Su teaches the mattresses as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As illustrated in figure 9, the top and bottom layers are directly connected (“wherein the sheet is directly welded to the second sheet at a plurality of distributed weld lines and weld points so that the inflatable pad maintains a predetermined shape in an inflated state.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights