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 1-11 are pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 11 has been added. This action is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 12/28/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20110265267 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses an air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]), comprising: a first inflatable body (backrest 1 and primary body 2) comprising a first wall (See Fig. 1, top of 1+2), a second wall disposed opposite to the first wall (See Fig. 1, bottom of 1+2, opposite of top), and a third wall connecting the first wall and the second wall (See Fig. 1, side of backrest 1 and primary body 2 connecting top and bottom); wherein the second wall defines a concave space (See Fig. 1 and 2, slit 3), the concave space being orientated lengthwise and extended to the third wall (See Fig. 1 and 2, slit 3 oriented lengthwise and extended to sides 1 and 2), by virtue of which the first inflatable body is bendable (See Fig. 1 and 2, wherein backrest 1 is folded up); wherein the concave space is extended to the third wall (See Fig. 1 and 2, slit 3 extends to side of backrest 1 and primary body 2); wherein the first inflatable body is an air bed when the first inflatable body is flattened (See Fig. 1, wherein both backrest 1 and primary body 2 are parallel forming a bed like structure), and is an air couch when the first inflatable body is bent (See Fig. 2, wherein the backrest 1 is folded up at the slit 3 forming a couch like structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second wall comprises an arch-like portion which defines the concave space (See Fig. 1-3, slit 3 forms an arch defining the concave space).
PNG
media_image2.png
220
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second inflatable body (pouch 4) disposed in the concave space wherein the first inflatable body is pushed to be bent by the second inflatable body when the second inflatable body is inflated (See Fig. 4, “pouch 4 inflatably received in the slit 3. With the provision of the slit 3 and the pouch 4 inside the slit 3, the backrest 1 is able to be lifted to an angle relative to the primary body 2”; [0025]).
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 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20110265267 A1) in view of Neggers (US 20110107520 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 2.
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a tensioning element connected to the second wall of the first inflatable body and extended over the concave space.
However, Neggers teaches a tensioning element (tensioning cable 32) connected to the second wall of the first inflatable body and extended over the concave space (See Fig. 7, “tensioning cable 32 can be elastic and then preferably be fastened to the bottom 39 of stationary part 40 of mattress 2”; [0057]).
PNG
media_image3.png
236
406
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 Wang by adding the tensioning cable taught by Neggers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “compact folding of body 3”; (Neggers, [0057]). 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 discloses the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 4.
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a tensioning element connected to the second wall of the first inflatable body and extended over the concave space.
However, Neggers teaches a tensioning element (tensioning cable 32) connected to the second wall of the first inflatable body and extended over the concave space (See Fig. 7, “tensioning cable 32 can be elastic and then preferably be fastened to the bottom 39 of stationary part 40 of mattress 2”; [0057]).
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 tensioning cable taught by Neggers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “compact folding of body 3”; (Neggers, [0057]). 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 6, Wang, as modified, teaches the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 4.
Wang fails to explicitly teach a tensioning element connected to the second wall of the first inflatable body; wherein the tensioning element is in tension when the second inflatable body is inflated to bend the first inflatable body; wherein the first inflatable body is flattened by the tensioning element when the second inflatable body is deflated.
However, Neggers teaches a tensioning element (tensioning cable 32) connected to the second wall of the first inflatable body (See Fig. 7, “tensioning cable 32 can be elastic and then preferably be fastened to the bottom 39 of stationary part 40 of mattress 2”; [0057]); wherein the tensioning element is in tension when the second inflatable body is inflated to bend the first inflatable body (See Fig. 7, cable 32 in tension when body 3 is inflated); wherein the first inflatable body is flattened by the tensioning element when the second inflatable body is deflated (“when the body deflates and the air is released therefrom, tensioning cable 32 ensures that the covering of hollow body 3 is folded onto itself”; [0055]).
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 tensioning cable taught by Neggers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “compact folding of body 3”; (Neggers, [0057]). 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 air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 6.
Wang fails to explicitly teach the tensioning element is an elastic cord.
However, Neggers teaches tensioning element is an elastic cord (“tensioning cable 32 can be elastic”; [0057]).
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 elastic cord taught by Neggers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “compact folding of body 3”; (Neggers, [0057]). 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 discloses an air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]), comprising: a first inflatable body (backrest 1 and primary body 2) comprising a first wall (See Fig. 1, top of 1+2), a second wall disposed opposite to the first wall (See Fig. 1, bottom of 1+2, opposite of top), and a third wall connecting the first wall and the second wall (See Fig. 1, side of backrest 1 and primary body 2 connecting top and bottom); a second inflatable body (pouch 4); wherein the second wall defines a concave space (See Fig. 1 and 2, slit 3), by virtue of which the first inflatable body is bendable (See Fig. 1 and 2, wherein backrest 1 is folded up); wherein the concave space is extended to the third wall (See Fig. 1 and 2, slit 3 extends to side of backrest 1 and primary body 2); wherein the second inflatable body is disposed in the concave space, such that the first inflatable body is pushed to be bent by the second inflatable body when the second inflatable body is inflated (See Fig. 4, “pouch 4 inflatably received in the slit 3. With the provision of the slit 3 and the pouch 4 inside the slit 3, the backrest 1 is able to be lifted to an angle relative to the primary body 2”; [0025]).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a tensioning element; wherein the tensioning element is connected to the second wall at a location apart from the third wall and is extended over the concave space, such that the first inflatable body is flattened by the tensioning element when the second inflatable body is deflated.
However, Neggers teaches a tensioning element (tensioning cable 32); wherein the tensioning element is connected to the second wall at a location apart from the third wall and is extended over the concave space (See Fig. 7, “tensioning cable 32 can be elastic and then preferably be fastened to the bottom 39 of stationary part 40 of mattress 2”; [0057]), such that the first inflatable body is flattened by the tensioning element when the second inflatable body is deflated (“when the body deflates and the air is released therefrom, tensioning cable 32 ensures that the covering of hollow body 3 is folded onto itself”; [0055]).
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 tensioning cable taught by Neggers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “compact folding of body 3”; (Neggers, [0057]). 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20110265267 A1) in view of Zheng (US 20070061977 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 1.
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a tensioning element connected to the first inflatable body so as to keep the first inflatable body bent.
However, Zheng teaches a tensioning element (straps 60a and 62a) connected to the first inflatable body (See Fig. 5, straps 60a and 62a connected to sections 54a and 56a) so as to keep the first inflatable body bent (“buckle members 64a and 66a can be fastened to each other behind the section 48a to secure the body 24a in the desired seat configuration”; [0035]).
PNG
media_image4.png
514
678
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 Wang by adding the straps taught by Zheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure the body 24a in the desired seat configuration”; (Zheng, [0035]). 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 9, Wang, as modified, teaches the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 8.
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the tensioning element is connected to the third wall.
However, Zheng teaches the tensioning element is connected to the third wall (See Fig. 5, straps 60a and 62a connected to sections 54a and 56a).
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 straps connected to the side as taught by Zheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure the body 24a in the desired seat configuration”; (Zheng, [0035]). 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 10, Wang, as modified, teaches the air couch bed (“inflatable bed”; [abstract]) as claimed in claim 8.
Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the tensioning element is a buckle strap.
However, Zheng teaches the tensioning element is a buckle strap (See Fig. 5, buckles 64 and 66a).
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 buckle straps connected as taught by Zheng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “secure the body 24a in the desired seat configuration”; (Zheng, [0035]). 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 filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
“Wang teaches an inflatable bed having a backrest body and a primary body connected at a slit. The adjustable portion is produced by two separate inflatable bodies with a slit positioned transversely at the head end. Significantly, Wang does not disclose "a concave space oriented lengthwise". Claim 1 recites a lengthwise concave region formed in the second wall of a single inflatable body, which is structurally distinct from Wang's transverse hinge separating two bodies. Accordingly, Wang cannot anticipate nor render obvious claim 1.”
“Further to the substantive distinctions above, to arrive at the structure of claimed embodiments, the prior art would need to be significantly re-engineered, including:
Transforming Zheng's planar sheet into a three-wall inflatable enclosure;
Replacing Wang's slit between two bodies with a concave space oriented lengthwise
within a wall of a single body;
Converting Neggers' external wedge into an internal concave deformation integral to the second wall.
Nothing in the cited art suggests any such modifications. Therefore, any combination of the cited art can only be made using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap, which is impermissible hindsight under KSR. For at least these reasons, the rejections of claims 3 and 5-10 are improper and should be withdrawn.”
Claim 11 recites the structural feature "the tensioning element is connected to the second wall at a location apart from the third wall." However, Neggers is silent to the structural feature of claim 11. Claim 11 further recites "....such that the first inflatable body is flattened by the tensioning element when the second inflatable body is deflated." In Neggers, however, the inelastic or elastic cable 32 is provided for folding the body 3 and achieving that side 33 of the body 3 does not bulge excessively (see Paragraph [0057]). Therefore, Applicant submits that the structure and operation recited in claim 11 significantly differ from those disclosed in the Neggers reference. Allowance of claim 11 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Wang fails to disclose “a concave space oriented lengthwise”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the claim rejection is maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Wang does teach a concave space orientated lengthwise. Figures 1 and 2 show slit 3 orientated between backrest 1 and body 2. The dimensions and orientations of Figures 1 and 2 of Wang can not be assumed and there is no specific mention of dimension or orientation within the applicant’s written disclosure, therefore Wang does in fact teach a concave space orientated lengthwise. Thus, the remarks pertaining to the rejection of claim 1 are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claim rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). See rejections of claims 3 and 5-10 for motivation found within the cited art. Thus, the remarks pertaining to the rejection of claims 3, and 5-10 are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claim rejection is maintained.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Wang in view of Neggers fails to teach “such that the first inflatable body is flattened by the tensioning element when the second inflatable is deflated”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the claim rejection is maintained. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Wang in view of Neggers does teach flattening of the first inflatable body. Neggers states, “in addition to compact folding of body 3”; [0057], inferring flattening of the first inflatable body. Thus, the remarks pertaining to the rejection of claim 11 are respectfully found unpersuasive and the claim rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2623574 A: Damsch discloses an air mattress folded and held in form by tensioning elements.
US 20070169273 A1: Wu discloses an inflatable pad assembly comprising multiple inflatable bodies wherein different forms represent that of a bed or chair/couch.
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