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 1-15 and 17-23 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 2, 10, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 22 and 23 have been added. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 7/27/2026.
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 1-5, 9-11, 13-14, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20080000030 A1) in view of Metzger (US 20060085918 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses an internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (body 10), the multi-chamber inflatable product including a plurality of air chambers (See Fig. 2A, body 10 having upper chamber 11, lower chamber 12, and two sub chambers 2), comprising an inflation and deflation assembly (air pump 4), the inflation and deflation assembly is arranged on [[the]] an outer wall of the inflatable product (See Fig. 2A, pump 4 arranged on outer wall of body 10) and connected with one of the air chambers of the plurality of air chambers (See Fig. 2A-2C, air pump 4 connected with two sub chambers 2 and upper chamber 11).
Wang fails to explicitly teach at least one regulating valve, and a wall of each other air chamber of the plurality of air chambers is provided with a regulating valve, the regulating valve comprises a valve body, and the valve body is provided with at least two air flow channels across the
However, Metzger teaches at least one regulating valve (See Fig. 2, pump 24), and a wall of each other air chamber of the plurality of air chambers is provided with a regulating valve (See Fig. 1, wall of airbed 20 having pump 24), the regulating valve comprises a valve body (See Fig. 2, housing 26), and the valve body is provided with at least two air flow channels across the (See Fig. 3, housing 26 having two air flow channels across top housing 34 and bottom housing 38).
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 Wang by adding the pump taught by Metzger to the exterior walls of sub chamber 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “both power inflation and power deflation”; (Metzger, [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 2, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 1.
Wang fails to explicitly teach 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
However, Metzger teaches 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 (See Fig. 6-7, inflate valve assembly 40 used for air to flow from the exterior of airbed 20 to the interior of airbed 20, deflate valve assembly used for air to flow from the interior of airbed 20 to the exterior of airbed 20).
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 Wang by adding the pump taught by Metzger to the exterior walls of sub chamber 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “both power inflation and power deflation”; (Metzger, [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 3, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 2.
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, Metzger teaches wherein at least two check valves are installed on the valve body, and each check valve forms one air flow channel (See Fig.6-7, valve assemblies 40, 42 operate as check valves, each forming their own air channel).
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 Wang by adding the check valves taught by Metzger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “allowing air to flow into or out of the airbed”; (Metzger, [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 4, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 3.
Wang fails to explicitly teach 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; the valve cover is provided with a connecting hole for connecting the inside and outside of the valve chamber.
However, Metzger teaches wherein the regulating valve further comprises a valve cover (top housing 34), which is connected to the valve body and forms a valve chamber with the valve body (See Fig. 3, 6-7, top housing 34, middle housing 36, and bottom housing 38 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. 6, holes 50, 52).
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 Wang by adding the valve cover taught by Metzger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “allowing air to flow into or out of the airbed”; (Metzger, [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 5, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 4, 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. 2C, air pump 4 having pipes 41, 42, 43), and the connecting hole on each regulating valve is connected with an air outlet through an air pipe (See Fig. 2C, pipes 42, 43, connecting to holes on sub chambers 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 1, wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is an inflation and deflation valve or an inflation and deflation pump (air pump 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang disclose an internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product (body 10), comprising: an inflatable product having at least two air chambers (See Fig. 2A, body 10 having upper chamber 11, lower chamber 12, and two sub chambers 2); an inflation and deflation assembly 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. 2A, pump 4 arranged on outer wall of body 10 and connected to chambers 11, 12, and 2); a first flow path from the inflation and deflation assembly to a first one of the at least two air chambers (See Fig. 2C, pipe 42 flowing to 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, pipe 43 flowing to other chamber 2).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a regulating valve positioned between the at least two air chambers; wherein the regulating valve has at least two air flow channels, a first air flow channel of the at least two air flow channels directing air in a first direction when the first air flow channel is in use, a second air flow channel of the at least two air flow channels directing air in a second direction opposite, the second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein the first air flow channel is independent of the second air flow channel.
However, Metzger teaches a regulating valve positioned between the at least two air chambers (See Fig. 2, housing 26 between chambers 11 and sub chambers 2 of Wang); wherein the regulating valve has at least two air flow channels , a first air flow channel of the at least two air flow channels directing air in a first direction when the first air flow channel is in use, a second air flow channel of the at least two air flow channels directing air in a second direction opposite, the second direction opposite the first direction, and wherein the first air flow channel is independent of the second air flow channel (See Fig. 6-7, inflate valve assembly 40 forming one air channel used for air to flow from the exterior of airbed 20 to the interior of airbed 20, deflate valve assembly forming a second air channel used for air to flow from the interior of airbed 20 to the exterior of airbed 20, both air channels independent from one another).
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 Wang by adding the pump with independent air channels taught by Metzger to the exterior walls of sub chamber 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “both power inflation and power deflation”; (Metzger, [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 11, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure of claim 10, wherein the inflation and deflation assembly comprises a pump (air pump 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure of claim 10, wherein the inflatable product has at least three air chambers (See Fig. 2A, body 10 having upper chamber 11, lower chamber 12, and two sub chambers 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim 13, wherein the inflation and deflation assembly is fluidly and independently coupled to each of the at least three air chambers (See Fig. 2A-2C, pipes 41, 42, and 43 fluidly coupled to chambers 11 and two sub chambers 2, respectively).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim [[16]] 10.
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein each air flow channel comprises a check valve.
However, Metzger teaches wherein each air flow channel comprises a check valve (See Fig.6-7, valve assemblies 40, 42 operate as check valves, each forming their own air channel).
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 Wang by adding the check valves taught by Metzger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “allowing air to flow into or out of the airbed”; (Metzger, [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 20, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim 10, further comprising 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).
Regarding Claim 21, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim 20, 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).
Regarding Claim 22, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 1.
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein a first one of the at least two air flow channels is independent of a second one of the at least two air flow channels.
However, Metzger teaches wherein a first one of the at least two air flow channels is independent of a second one of the at least two air flow channels (See Fig. 6-7, inflate valve assembly 40 forming one air channel used for air to flow from the exterior of airbed 20 to the interior of airbed 20, deflate valve assembly forming a second air channel used for air to flow from the interior of airbed 20 to the exterior of airbed 20, both air channels independent from one another).
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 Wang by adding the pump with independent air channels taught by Metzger to the exterior walls of sub chamber 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “both power inflation and power deflation”; (Metzger, [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 23, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 1.
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the regulating valve is mechanically actuatable.
However, Metzger teaches wherein the regulating valve is mechanically actuatable (“inflate and deflate valve assemblies 40, 42 are actuated”; [0046]).
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 Wang by adding the actuated valves taught by Metzger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a much less expensive valve structure than electronically actuated valves”; (Metzger, [0046]). 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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20080000030 A1) in view of Metzger (US 20060085918 A1), further in view of Wu (US 6543073 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 3.
Wang in view of Metzger 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_image1.png
312
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
480
media_image2.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 Wang in view of Metzer by substituting for the valve 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, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 6.
Wang in view of Metzger 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 Wang in view of Metzger 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20080000030 A1) in view of Metzger (US 20060085918 A1), further in view of Ocegueda (US 20160135607 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure for a multi-chamber inflatable product according to claim 3.
Wang in view of Metzger 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 Wang in view of Metzger 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20080000030 A1) in view of Metzger (US 20060085918 A1), further in view of Eells (US 20150362077 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulating structure of claim 10.
Wang in view of Metzger fails to explicitly teach wherein the inflation and deflation assembly comprises a valve.
However, Eells teaches wherein the inflation and deflation assembly comprises a valve (inflation valve 20).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Wang in view of Metzger (directed to a multi chamber inflatable article with a regulating valve) and Eells (directed to an assembly with an inflation valve) and arrived at Multi-chamber inflatable article with an inflation valve. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (adding an inflation valve to existing inflation functions of the inflatable article) with a reasonable expectation of success (Multi-chamber inflatable article would still inflate) and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the existing inflating structure could be used with the inflation valve to still inflate the article).
Claims 15 and 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20080000030 A1) in view of Metzger (US 20060085918 A1), further in view of Driscoll (20150164236 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim 10, wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to selectively and independently inflate or deflate (“selectively inflates or deflates at least one of the primary chamber (1) in the body (10) and the sub chambers (2)”; [0030])
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to simultaneously inflate or deflate.
However, Driscoll teaches wherein each of the at least two air chambers is configured to 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 Wang in view of Metzger 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, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim [[16]] 10.
Wang in view of Metzger 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 Wang in view of Metzger 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, Wang, as modified, teaches the internal pressure regulation structure of claim 18.
Wang in view of Metzger 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 Wang in view of Metzger 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.
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.
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
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights