August 3, 2026
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 8-13 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.
In claim 8, Applicant has amended the claim to include the step of “receiving, at an end user, packaging carrying a cover”. The phrase “receiving, at an end user, packaging carrying a cover, an inflatable bladder, and padding in an unassembled state” is unclear and confusing language. The language “at an end user” is ambiguous and does not clearly recite who or what is performing the receiving step. It is not clear whether the packaging is received by the end user, at the end user’s location, or by another party. The claim language does not make it clear whether the end user is the actor or the location, resulting in uncertainty as to the scope of the claim.
The aforementioned problem renders the claims vague and indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-16, 18-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,114,783 B2) in view of Owings (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0161297 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
134
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
142
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Warren et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed including an inflatable meditation cushion comprising a cover 403, 503, padding 406, 505 configured to be positioned within the cover; and an inflatable bladder configured to be positioned within the padding.404, 504 but is silent as to whether the inflatable meditation cushion comes in a kit.
PNG
media_image3.png
140
162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Owings teaches the concept of providing an inflatable meditation cushion in a kit to be old (see paragraph [0010] where it reads “Another aspect of the present disclosure relates to a kit for travel meditation. The kit includes a mat portion having an inflated mat height in the range of about 2 to about 4 inches, a coupling mechanism positioned along a length of the mat portion, and a nozzle for inflating and deflating the mat portion. The kit also includes a seat portion having an inflated seat height in the range of about 6 inches to about 10 inches, a coupling mechanism positioned along a length of the seat portion and the respective coupling mechanisms configured to secure to one another, a nozzle for inflating and deflating the seat portion. The kit further includes an air pump coupleable to the nozzle for inflating and deflating the mat portion and coupleable to the nozzle for inflating and deflating the seat portion.” It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inflatable meditation cushion, as taught by Warren et al, in a kit, as taught by Owings since it would allow the inflatable meditation cushion to be stored when not in use and transported front place to place more easily.
As for Claims 15 and 23, Warren et al teach that the inflatable bladder comprises a main body and a valve (see the specification at column 5, lines 59-67 and column 6, lines 1-2 where it reads “The inflatable element 504 may also include a means for adding whatever inflation element is being used for inflation. For the purposes of this example, air may be used to inflate the inflatable element 504 via the access means 405 protruding through the base 501. This access means 405 may, for example, comprise a valve stem of the type commonly used on rubber inner tubes for bicycle tires (e.g., a Schraeder or Presta valve). Other types of valves well known for use with inflatable devices could alternatively be provided. The access means 405 may also operate as a release valve to release the inflation element from the inflatable element.”).
As for Claim 16, Warren et al. teach that a side panel; an upper panel 408, 508 configured to be coupled to the side panel at an upper seam; and a lower panel 401, 501 configured to be coupled to the side panel at a lower seam.
As for Claim 18, Owings teaches a zipper coupled to the cover (see paragraph [0029] where it reads “The cover is configured to receive the mat and/or pillow therein and can be removably sealed around the mat and pillow via a resalable mechanism such as a zipper, button or other closure mechanism.”).
As for Claim 19, Owings teaches a handle coupled to the cover (see paragraph [0045] where it reads “The cover may also be adapted with one or more handles such as handle positioned on one or more sides of the mat portion. The cover includes a handle positioned on the rear of the mat portion.”).
As for Claim 20, Owings teaches a fastener 16 configured to secure the inflatable meditation cushion in a transport configuration.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,114,783 B2) in view of Owings (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0161297 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Barton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,070,942).
Warren et al. in view of Owings teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not teach that the cover comprises a plurality of pleats positioned at at least one of the upper seam and the lower seam.
PNG
media_image4.png
166
302
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Barton et al teach the concept of including pleats on a cover of a cushion to be old (see column 4, lines 44-51 where it reads “The cover or upholstery layer 56 is extensible in that it is configured to expand with air cell inflation. Extensibility may be achieved either through the use of a stretch fabric, or by incorporating pleats into the fabric. Such pleats would preferably be formed along trim lines adjacent the peripheral edge 60 of the upholstery 56 and would pull apart or open in response to the weight of an occupant and/or air cell inflation.”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the cover, as taught by Warren et al., to include a plurality of pleats positioned at at least one of the upper seam and the lower seam, as taught by Barton et al, since the pleats would allow the inflatable meditation cushion to expand when the inflatable meditation cushion is inflated or in response to the weight of an occupant .
Claims 8, 9-13, and 22, so far as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,114,783 B2) in view of Owings (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0161297 A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method for using an inflatable meditation cushion as recited as this would be the normal and logical manner of using an inflatable meditation cushion, as taught by the combination of the references discussed above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,114,783 B2) in view of Owings (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0161297 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Webb et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240335044 A1).
Warren et al. in view of Owings teaches the method substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not the cover comprises a textile obtained from a previously used product. However, Webb et al. teach an inflatable multi-use furniture assembly that has a cover 16 that is capable of being made from recycled material, other materials, and/or combinations thereof (see paragraph [0066] where it reads “In one embodiment, the cover 16 is constructed from cotton, twill, linen, nylon velvet, leather, suraline gabardine material, stretchable material, natural material, recycled material, and/or combinations thereof.”). It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to include making the cover of the inflatable meditation cushion, from a textile obtained from a previously used product, as taught by Webb et al., since the use of textiles obtained from a previously used product results in waste reduction, resource conservation, and high durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that:
“The proffered motivation to combine Warren with Owings is that providing the cushion in a kit "would allow the inflatable meditation cushion to be stored when not in use and transported [from] place to place more easily." Office Action, pp. 4- 5. Applicant respectfully submits that this rationale is insufficient. Warren already teaches a cushion that can be deflated and transported (see Warren, col. 3, Il. 55-67; col. 4, Il. 1-10), so there is no apparent unmet need for a separate "kit" for storage and transport purposes. The stated motivation therefore does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have re-packaged Warren's already- transportable cushion in an unassembled state in packaging along with separate padding, as claim 14 recites.
Owings also does not teach the missing feature of claim 14. Owings' kit is, at most, a set of pre-assembled inflatable meditation components, such as a mat, a seat, and a pump. It is not a kit of unassembled sub-components of an inflatable meditation cushion, including a cover, padding, and an inflatable bladder arranged for assembly by an end user. Accordingly, the combination of Warren and Owings does not teach or suggest the kit recited in claim 14.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 14-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Warren in view of Owings.”
However, the motivation to provide a product as a kit is not limited to improving storage/transport. Kits are commonly provided to reduce shipping volume, enable distributed assembly (e.g., IKEA furniture), lower manufacturing costs, or allow customization. Even if Warren’s cushion is deflatable, Owings explicitly teaches the commercial provision of inflatable meditation products as a kit of components (see Owings [0010], kit includes seat portion, mat portion, pump, and assembly by the user).
With respect to the rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Warren, Applicant argues that:
“Warren does not teach or suggest such a method. Warren's cushion is a finished product. More specifically, Warren is directed to use of an already- assembled cushion, not completion of the final assembly of a cushion by an end user from packaged components.
The Office Action's broad assertion that the steps of claim 8 are the "normal and logical manner" of using Warren's cushion conflates a method of assembly with a method of use. The Office Action does not articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would receive Warren's cushion as a disassembled kit, assemble the cushion by arranging the bladder, padding, and cover as recited, and then inflate the bladder. Because the claim recites end-user assembly steps that are absent from Warren, Warren does not render claim 8 obvious.
Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments reflect the practical character of the disclosed invention. The specification does not merely describe a completed cushion; it describes a distributed approach in which the end user participates in the final assembly of the product. That participation is meaningful because it gives the user a direct role in creating the cushion that the user will later use for meditation, thereby fostering enhanced affinity for the cushion. In that context, the claims focus on the kit and end-user assembly features that distinguish the claimed method from ordinary use of Warren's already-completed cushion.”
Claims 8-13 and 22 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Warren in view of Owings (U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2021/0161297 A1) to show the teaching of providing a kit of unassembled components in packaging, to be assembled by the end user.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, David R. Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
