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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 20 and 21 have been added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/29/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 1/6/2026 has been considered by the office.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eells (US 20150362077 A1) in view of Wang (US 20080000030 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Eells discloses an internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10), comprising an inflation and deflation assembly (inflation port 22, “configured to connect with a pump or the like, or be manually operated or blown into”; [0016]) and at least one regulating valve (valve assembly 40), the inflation and deflation assembly is arranged on the outer wall of the inflatable product and connected with one of the air chambers (See Fig. 1, inflation port 22 arranged on outer wall of device 10), and the outer wall of each other air chambers is provided with a regulating valve (See Fig. 2, valve assembly 40 arranged on interior walls 36 of chambers 14 and 16), the regulating valve comprises a valve body (valve body 42), and the valve body is provided with at least two air flow channels (See Fig. 2, first port 44 and second port 46).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eells fails to explicitly disclose two air flow channels across the outer wall of the respective chamber.
However, the prior art of Wang teaches at least two air flow channels across the outer wall of the respective chamber (See Fig. 2C, inlet-and-outlet pipes 41, 42, 43).
PNG
media_image3.png
348
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells by adding the pipes taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to inflate or deflate”; (Wang, [0031]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the air flow channels is used for the air to flow from a first side to a second side, and at least one of the air flow channels is used for the air to flow from the second side to the first side, the first side and the second side refer to the inner and outer sides of the outer wall of the air chamber where the regulating valve is installed (See Fig. 2, “control fluid communication between ports 44 and 46 and thus chambers 14 and 16”; [0018], therefore both ports are able to allow air flow from one side to the other and vice versa).
Regarding Claim 9, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 1, wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is an inflation and deflation valve or an inflation and deflation pump (inflation port 22, “inflation valve 20 configured to connect with a pump or the like, or be manually operated or blown into”; [0016]).
Regarding Claim 10, Eells discloses an internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10), comprising: an inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) having at least two air chambers (chambers 14, 16, 18); a regulating valve positioned between the at least two air chambers (See Fig. 2, valve assembly 40 arranged on interior walls 36 of chambers 14 and 16); and an inflation and deflation assembly (inflation port 22, “configured to connect with a pump or the like, or be manually operated or blown into”; [0016]) positioned on an outer wall of the inflatable product and fluidly coupled to at least one of the at least two air chambers (See Fig. 1, inflation port 22 arranged on outer wall of device 10).
Eells fails to explicitly disclose a first flow path from the inflation and deflation assembly to a first one of the at least two air chambers; and a second flow path from the inflation and deflation assembly to a second one of the at least two air chambers.
However, Wang teaches a first flow path from the inflation and deflation assembly to a first one of the at least two air chambers (See Fig. 2C, flow path through pipe 42 to sub-chamber 2); and a second flow path from the inflation and deflation assembly to a second one of the at least two air chambers (See Fig. 2C, flow path through pipe 43 to other sub-chamber 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells by adding the pipes and flow paths taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to inflate or deflate”; (Wang, [0031]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 10, wherein the inflation and deflation assembly comprises a pump (inflation port 22, “configured to connect with a pump or the like, or be manually operated or blown into”; [0016]).
Regarding Claim 12, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 10, wherein the inflation and deflation assembly comprises a valve (inflation valve 20).
Regarding Claim 13, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 10, wherein the inflatable product has at least three air chambers (chambers 14, 16, 18).
Regarding Claim 16, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 10, wherein the regulating valve has at least two air flow channels, each air flow channel directing air in a different direction from the other (See Fig. 2, “control fluid communication between ports 44 and 46 and thus chambers 14 and 16”; [0018], therefore both ports are able to allow air flow from one side to the other and vice versa).
Regarding Claim 20, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 10.
Eells fails to explicitly teach a third one of the at least two air chambers, wherein the first flow path and the second flow path traverse through the third one.
However, Wang teaches a third one of the at least two air chambers (primary chamber 1), wherein the first flow path and the second flow path traverse through the third one (See Fig. 2C, pipes 42 and 43 traverse primary chamber 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells by adding the third chamber and flow paths taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “so that each person's movement only deforms a corresponding chamber wall instead of deforming other chamber walls on which other persons lie”; (Wang, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 20.
Eells fails to explicitly teach wherein the first flow path is defined by an air pipe that traverses the third one, and wherein the second flow path is defined by an air pipe that traverses the third one.
However, Wang teaches wherein the first flow path is defined by an air pipe that traverses the third one (See Fig. 2C, pipe 42), and wherein the second flow path is defined by an air pipe that traverses the third one (See Fig. 2C, pipe 43).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells by adding the pipes and flow paths taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “so that each person's movement only deforms a corresponding chamber wall instead of deforming other chamber walls on which other persons lie”; (Wang, [Abstract]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 3-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eells (US 20150362077 A1) in view of Wang (US 20080000030 A1), further in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Eells discloses the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 2.
Eells in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein at least two check valves are installed on the valve body, and each check valve forms one air flow channel.
However, Wang (US 7120955 B2) teaches wherein at least two check valves are installed on the valve body, and each check valve forms one air flow channel (See Fig. 10B, reservoir 151 as two air flow channels, wherein a first check valve 97 is located at the air intake 152 and a third check valve 98 is located at the air outlet 153).
PNG
media_image4.png
492
334
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang by adding the two check valves taught by Wang (US 7120955 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “controlling the entrance of air into the bellows…for controlling the air flow”; (Wang, [Col. 7, Lines 34-40]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 3, wherein the regulating valve further comprises a valve cover, which is connected to the valve body and forms a valve chamber with the valve body (See Fig. 4, first valve body piece 82 and second valve body piece 84 forming a valve chamber); the valve cover is provided with a connecting hole for connecting the inside and outside of the valve chamber (See Fig. 4, valve seats 52 and 54).
PNG
media_image5.png
460
388
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 16.
Eells in view of Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein each air flow channel comprises a check valve.
However, Wang (US 7120955 B2) teaches wherein each air flow channel comprises a check valve (See Fig. 10B, reservoir 151 as two air flow channels, wherein a first check valve 97 is located at the air intake 152 and a third check valve 98 is located at the air outlet 153).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang by adding the two check valves taught by Wang (US 7120955 B2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “controlling the entrance of air into the bellows…for controlling the air flow”; (Wang, [Col. 7, Lines 34-40]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eells (US 20150362077 A1) in view of Wang (US 20080000030 A1), in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) further in view of Driscoll (20150164236 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 4.
Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) fails to explicitly teach wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is a multi-channel air pump, the multi-channel air pump is provided with a plurality of air outlets, and the connecting hole on each regulating valve is connected with an air outlet through an air pipe.
However, Driscoll teaches wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is a multi-channel air pump, the multi-channel air pump is provided with a plurality of air outlets (See Fig. 1B, pump 150 having six manifold outlets), and the connecting hole on each regulating valve is connected with an air outlet through an air pipe (“valves may be provided at the connection between the manifold 112 and the tubes 113, 115, and 116”; [0021]).
PNG
media_image6.png
656
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) by adding the multi-channel air pump taught by Driscoll. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “isolating/connecting the chambers to/from the manifold”; (Driscoll, [0020]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eells (US 20150362077 A1) in view of Wang (US 20080000030 A1), further in view of Driscoll (20150164236 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 13.
Eells in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is fluidly and independently coupled to each of the at least three air chambers.
However, Driscoll teaches wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is fluidly and independently coupled to each of the at least three air chambers (See Fig. 1B, pump 150 having six manifold outlets independently coupled to six air chambers).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang by adding the independently coupled air chambers taught by Driscoll. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “isolating/connecting the chambers to/from the manifold”; (Driscoll, [0020]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 10.
Eells in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to both: selectively and independently inflate or deflate; and simultaneously inflate or deflate.
However, Driscoll teaches wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to both: selectively and independently inflate or deflate; and simultaneously inflate or deflate (“control unit 114 controls the pump 111 and the flow of gas in the airbed environment through the tubes 113, 115, and 116 by opening and closing the appropriate valves”; [0023], a user would have the ability to open both valves and once to inflate or deflate one or both chambers independently or at the same time).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang by adding the independently or simultaneous inflation and/or deflation of the chambers taught by Driscoll. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “inflate or deflate an air mattress chamber as desired”; (Driscoll, [0076]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 18, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 16.
Eells fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to simultaneously reach a common pressure.
However, Driscoll teaches wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to simultaneously reach a common pressure (“control unit 114 controls the pump 111 and the flow of gas in the airbed environment through the tubes 113, 115, and 116 by opening and closing the appropriate valves”; [0023] and “controlling inflation and deflation of an air mattress is for a user to provide a specific target pressure”; [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang by adding the simultaneous inflation of the chambers to a common pressure taught by Driscoll. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “inflate or deflate an air mattress chamber as desired”; (Driscoll, [0076]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 19, Eells, as modified, teaches an internal pressure regulating structure (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) of claim 18.
Eells in view of Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to be independently manipulated to reach different pressures.
However, Driscoll teaches wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to be independently manipulated to reach different pressures (“control unit 114 controls the pump 111 and the flow of gas in the airbed environment through the tubes 113, 115, and 116 by opening and closing the appropriate valves”; [0023] and “controlling inflation and deflation of an air mattress is for a user to provide a specific target pressure”; [0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang by adding the independent inflation of the chambers to different pressures taught by Driscoll. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “inflate or deflate an air mattress chamber as desired”; (Driscoll, [0076]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eells (US 20150362077 A1) in view of Wang (US 20080000030 A1), in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2), further in view Wu (US 6543073 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 3.
Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) fails to explicitly teach wherein the check valve comprises a gland, a valve slice, a valve stem and an elastic member, the gland is fixed on the valve body; the valve slice, the valve stem and the elastic member are arranged between the gland and the valve body, one end of the valve stem passes through the elastic member and then fixed on the valve body, and the other end presses against the valve slice.
However, Wu teaches wherein the check valve comprises a gland (mounting wall portion 1111), a valve slice (urging plate 1132), a valve stem (piston shaft 1131) and an elastic member (biasing member 114), the gland is fixed on the valve body; the valve slice, the valve stem and the elastic member are arranged between the gland and the valve body, one end of the valve stem passes through the elastic member and then fixed on the valve body, and the other end presses against the valve slice (See Fig. 6 and 7 for orientation of the various check valve components of Wu).
PNG
media_image7.png
312
356
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
234
480
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) by adding the check valve components and orientation taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “preventing the air in the inflatable article from escaping”; (Wu, [Col. 3, Lines 47-48]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 7, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 6.
Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) fails to explicitly teach wherein the check valve further comprises a wear-resistant gasket, and the wear-resistant gasket is arranged between the elastic member and the valve body.
However, Wu teaches wherein the check valve further comprises a wear-resistant gasket, and the wear-resistant gasket is arranged between the elastic member and the valve body (See Fig. 7, gasket 112 between biasing member 114 and valve body).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) by adding the gasket taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “seal the valve seat 1113 and thereby preventing the air in the inflatable article from escaping”; (Wu, [Col. 3, Lines 47-48]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eells (US 20150362077 A1) in view of Wang (US 20080000030 A1) in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) further in view Ocegueda (US 20160135607 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Eells, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (multi-chamber inflatable device 10) according to claim 3.
Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) fails to explicitly teach wherein the check valve is a PVC check valve.
However, Ocegueda teaches wherein the check valve is a PVC check valve (“valve may be constructed out of polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”)”; [0035]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Eells in view of Wang in view of Wang (US 7120955 B2) by using PVC as the valve material such as taught by Ocegueda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140090176 A1: Boyd discloses a multi-chamber air mattress comprising a multi outlet air pump to inflate the chambers.
Us 20140109319 A1: Wilkinson discloses a cushioning device including a plurality of air cells, multiple check valves and relief valves to control air flow in and out of the air cells.
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673