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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 2-30 have been examined in this application. Claim 1 has been canceled. Claims 25-30 are newly added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 3/29/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 25-30, 2-11, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0120331 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
Note: Claim 25 is now rejected initially due to updated dependencies as required by Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches: An inflatable product (see Abstract: “inflatable bed”) comprising:
a first panel forming both a top wall of an inflatable pad body and a front wall of an inflatable backrest body (see Fig. 1, top layer 1 forms both top wall and front wall of backrest body);
a second panel forming both a side wall of the inflatable pad body and a back wall of the inflatable backrest body (see Fig. 1, lateral layer 3 forms side walls and back wall of backrest); and
a third panel forming a bottom wall of the inflatable pad body (see Fig. 1, bottom layer 2),
wherein the first panel, second panel, and third panel are connected to define an inflatable chamber (see para [0007-0009]);
wherein the first panel has a greater front-to-back length than the third panel (see Fig. 1, due to the upward bending of top layer 1 to encompass front part of the backrest it extends a longer total length than bottom layer 2).
(Annotated Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
574
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the first panel is formed from a single sheet or from multiple sheets joined together (see para [0038], the layers appear to be integral and singular structures connected to the other layers, thus each layer may be considered a “single sheet”).
Regarding claim 27, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the second panel is formed from a single sheet or from multiple sheets joined together (see para [0038], the layers appear to be integral and singular structures connected to the other layers, thus each layer may be considered a “single sheet”).
Regarding claim 28, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the third panel is formed from a single sheet or from multiple sheets joined together (see para [0038], the layers appear to be integral and singular structures connected to the other layers, thus each layer may be considered a “single sheet”).
Regarding claim 29, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the second panel forms a continuous loop band (see Fig. 1, lateral layer 3 forms a loop band as shown, also para [0038]: “lateral layer 3 is formed in a loop”).
Regarding claim 30, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the pad body and the backrest body share a common inflatable chamber (see para [0038]: “lateral layer 3 is formed in a loop connecting the top layer 1 and bottom layer 2 to form a closed space”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the top wall and the front wall are integrally formed as a continuous piece (see Fig. 1, top layer 1 forms both top wall and front wall of backrest body, see also para [0006, 0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the side wall and the back wall are integrally formed as a continuous piece (see Fig. 1, lateral layer 3 forms side walls and back wall of backrest, see also para [0006,0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the front wall is larger than the back wall in size (see Fig. 1, the front wall of top layer 1 can be said to have a greater surface area than the surface area of lateral layer 3 which forms the back wall).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: wherein the top wall is larger than the bottom wall in size (see Fig. 1, due to the upward bending of top layer 1 to encompass front part of the backrest it extends a longer total length than bottom layer 2).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 5, and additionally teaches: wherein: the side wall comprises a top and a bottom (see Fig. 1, lateral layer 3 has a top at edge where it meets top layer 1 and a bottom at edge where it meets bottom layer 2); the side wall is in a closed shape (see Fig. 1, as shown); an area surrounded by the side wall is gradually larger from the bottom to the top (see Fig. 7 embodiment with pull strap 10 wherein the bottom of side wall is larger in footprint than the top of side wall).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: further comprising: a plurality of first tensioning elements vertically disposed to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2-3, pull straps 4); a second tensioning element slanted to connect the top wall and the side wall (see Fig. 2-3, pull straps 5); a third tensioning element slanted to connect the side wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 8, loop pull straps 10); a fourth tensioning element slanted or horizontally disposed to connect the front wall and the back wall (see Fig. 2 or 8, horizontally oriented pull strap 4 in head wall).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: further comprising: a plurality of first tensioning elements vertically disposed to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2-3, vertical pull straps 4); a second tensioning element slanted to connect the top wall and the side wall (see Fig. 9, upper edge pull straps 10); a third tensioning element slanted or horizontally disposed to connect the front wall and the back wall (see Fig. 2 or 8, horizontally oriented pull strap 4 in head wall).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: further comprising: a plurality of first tensioning elements vertically disposed to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2-3, vertical pull straps 4); a second tensioning element slanted to connect the side wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 8, loop pull straps 10); a third tensioning element slanted or horizontally disposed to connect the front wall and the back wall (see Fig. 2 or 8, horizontally oriented pull strap 4 in head wall).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: further comprising: a plurality of first tensioning elements vertically disposed to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2-3, vertical pull straps 4); a second tensioning element comprising a first portion and a second portion (see Fig. 8 ends of pull strap 5 are the first and second portion), both of which connect to where the front wall and the top wall meet (see Fig. 8, pull strap 5 connects at front wall and top wall); wherein the first portion further connects to the back wall (see Fig. 5, end of pull strap 5); wherein the second portion further connects to the side wall (see Fig. 8, other end of pull strap 5).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and additionally teaches: further comprising: a first tensioning element vertically disposed to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2-3, vertical pull straps 4); a second tensioning element slanted to connect the top wall and the side wall (see Fig. 2-3, pull straps 5); a third tensioning element slanted or horizontally disposed to connect the front wall and the back wall (see Fig. 2 or 8, horizontally oriented pull strap 4 in head wall).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches: A method of manufacturing an inflatable product which comprises an inflatable pad body and an inflatable backrest body (see Abstract, “inflatable bed”), comprising:
providing a first part which comprises a top wall of the inflatable pad body and a front wall of the inflatable backrest body (see Fig. 1, top layer 1);
providing a second part which comprises a side wall of the inflatable pad body and a back wall of the inflatable backrest body (see Fig. 1, lateral layer 3);
providing a third part which comprises a bottom wall of the inflatable pad body (see Fig. 1, bottom layer 2);
connecting the first part and the second part in a way that the top wall is connected to the side wall, and the front wall is connected to the back wall (see para [0039]: layers 1, 2, 3, are connected);
connecting the second part and the third part in a way that the side wall is connected to the bottom wall (see Fig. 1, as shown, layer 2 and 3 are connected at a bottom edge).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additionally teaches: wherein the first part is a sheet (see Fig. 1, top layer 1 may be considered a “sheet” of material).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additionally teaches: wherein the second part is a looped band (see para [00038]: “lateral layer 3 is formed in a loop”).
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additionally teaches: wherein the third part is a sheet (see Fig. 1, bottom layer 2 may be considered a “sheet” of material).
Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 17, and additionally teaches: wherein:
the inflatable product further comprises an inflatable armrest body (see Fig. 9, loop pull strap 10 forms a raised section around the perimeter of top layer 1);
the first part further comprises an inner wall of the inflatable armrest body (see Fig. 9, inner wall of 10 faces interior of top layer 1);
the second part further comprises an outer wall of inflatable armrest body (see Fig. 9, outer wall faces lateral layer 3);
the first part and the second part are further connected in a way that the inner wall is connected to the outer wall (see Fig. 9 interface between strap 10 and lateral layer 3).
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.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0120331 to Wang in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0163935 to Harris.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 25, and also teaches the following: further comprising: an inflatable [armrest] body (see Fig. 9, upper loop pull strap 10) comprising an inner wall and an outer wall connected to the inner wall (see Fig. 9, inner wall of 10 faces interior of top layer 1 | outer wall faces lateral layer 3); wherein the inner wall adjoins the top wall (see Fig. 9, interface between 10 and 1); wherein the outer wall adjoins the side wall and the back wall (see Fig. 9 interface between strap 10 and lateral layer 3).
Wang does not explicitly teach: an armrest body
Harris teaches: an armrest body (see Fig. 2A-2B, two side portions 4 adjacent to base 6 that function as arm rests).
Wang and Harris are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wang with these aforementioned teachings of Harris in order to create a larger integral arm rest as taught by Harris with a reasonable expectation of success under the well-known advantage of improving user comfort.
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally Wang teaches: wherein the top wall, the front wall and the inner wall are integrally formed as a continuous piece (see Fig. 9, layer 1 and inner/front walls are shown as integral with one another).
Regarding claim 14, Wang as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally Wang teaches: wherein the outer wall, the side wall and the back wall are integrally formed as a continuous piece (see Fig. 9, outer wall and layer 3 and back of back rest are all shown as integral).
Regarding claim 15, Wang as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally Wang teaches: further comprising: a first tensioning element vertically disposed to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 2-3, vertical pull straps 4); a second tensioning element slanted to connect the top wall and the bottom wall (see Fig. 8, pull strap 5); a third tensioning element slanted or horizontally disposed to connect the front wall and the back wall (see Fig. 8, horizontally oriented pull strap 4 in head rest).
Regarding claim 16, Wang as modified, teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally Wang teaches: wherein the inner wall is larger than the outer wall in size (based on the view in Fig. 9, the inner wall appears larger than the outer wall.
PNG
media_image2.png
578
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0120331 to Wang in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0180052 to Chen.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, however does not teach the following: wherein the sheet is an integrally-formed continuous plastic piece or is formed by connecting a plurality of plastic pieces.
Chen teaches: wherein the sheet is an integrally-formed continuous plastic piece or is formed by connecting a plurality of plastic pieces (see para [0050]: inflatable compartment 110 made of “plastic material”).
Wang and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wang with these aforementioned teachings of Chen to have formed the layers of Wang out of plastic material as discussed by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to form them of an air-impermeable material (see Chen, para [0050]).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 20, however does not teach the following: wherein the looped band is formed by connecting edges of at least one plastic piece.
Chen teaches: wherein the looped band is formed by connecting edges of at least one plastic piece (see para [0050]: inflatable compartment 110 made of “plastic material”).
Wang and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wang with these aforementioned teachings of Chen to have formed the layers of Wang out of plastic material as discussed by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to form them of an air-impermeable material (see Chen, para [0050]).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 22, however does not teach the following: wherein the sheet is an integrally-formed continuous plastic piece or is formed by connecting a plurality of plastic pieces.
Chen teaches: wherein the sheet is an integrally-formed continuous plastic piece or is formed by connecting a plurality of plastic pieces (see para [0050]: inflatable compartment 110 made of “plastic material”).
Wang and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of inflatable supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wang with these aforementioned teachings of Chen to have formed the layers of Wang out of plastic material as discussed by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to form them of an air-impermeable material (see Chen, para [0050]).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 25, Applicant’s newly added claim has required a reinterpretation of the applied reference (Wang – US 2016/0120331) in view of the changes made with respect to canceled independent claim 1. However, Applicant’s arguments were still not found to be persuasive. Please review the updated rejection to claim 25 (and others) as to how Wang has been applied.
Applicant argues that “In Wang, the second panel 3 does not form the back wall of the inflatable backrest body.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees in that at least a portion of the “back wall” of Wang is formed by second panel 3. Claim 25 does not provide detail nor require the back wall to be the portion of the backrest that is opposite or parallel to the front wall. Thus, under a broadest reasonable interpretation the “back wall” can be the horizontal upper surface portion at the topmost portion of the backrest and thus be formed of second panel 3.
Applicant further argues that “In Wang, the first panel 1 does not have a greater front-to-back-length than the third panel 2.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees in that least a given defined portion of the first panel 1 extends longer than a given defined portion of the third panel 2 (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
The examiner suggests more specifically defining how the “front-to-back length” is determined by using references to existing structural features of the claimed elements. For example: “the first panel having a first front-to-back length defined as a total extending distance of the top wall and front wall along a longitudinal axis of the first panel…the second panel having a second front-to-back length defined as a total extending distance of the bottom wall along a longitudinal axis of the third panel…wherein the first front-to-back length is greater than the second front-to back length.” (or similar).
PNG
media_image3.png
540
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 17, the Examiner submits the response to arguments in paragraph 3 above pertaining to claim 25 also applies to independent claim 17 similarly.
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 DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights