Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/740,731

INFLATABLE PRODUCT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 12, 2024
Examiner
THROOP, MYLES A
Art Unit
3673
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Team Worldwide Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
346 granted / 595 resolved
+6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
634
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 595 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 6/12/24. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected. 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 . 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 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 of this title, 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, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,694,372 to Boyd. Claim 1. An inflatable product (Boyd, Fig. 2) comprising: an inflatable body (Boyd, Fig. 2, #50); a tensioning structure (Boyd, Fig. 2, #80) disposed in and connected to the inflatable body, for controlling expansion of the inflatable body when the inflatable body is inflated; wherein the tensioning structure comprises a plastic portion (Boyd, Fig. 4, #90) connected to the inflatable body by fusion or gluing (Boyd does not explicitly discuss the connection method of structures #90 and 92 in Fig. 4, however Boyd does disclose various known attachment methods for other connection points, and states in column 6, lines 42-45 that “the flange member 132 can be attached to the vertical member 80 and internal horizontal layer 82 by sewing, sonic welding, dielectric seaming, or other known method”; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any of these methods for any of the connection points in the air mattress since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results), and a fabric portion (Boyd, Fig. 4, #92; also see column 5, lines 10-45) connected to the plastic portion by sewing or gluing (Boyd does not explicitly discuss the connection method of structures #90 and 92 in Fig. 4, however Boyd does disclose various known attachment methods for other connection points, and states in column 6, lines 42-45 that “the flange member 132 can be attached to the vertical member 80 and internal horizontal layer 82 by sewing, sonic welding, dielectric seaming, or other known method”; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any of these methods for any of the connection points in the air mattress since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results). Claim 12. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fabric portion is a sheet (Boyd, Fig. 4, #92 is considered to be “a sheet”). Claim 13. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fabric portion comprises a plurality of straps disposed in parallel (see at least Boyd, Fig. 2). Claim 14. See rejection of claim 1, above. Regarding “a first plastic portion, a second plastic portion” and “a first fabric portion, and a second fabric portion”, Boyd discloses multiple internal vertical members in Fig. 2 at #80) Claim 15. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 14, wherein the first plastic portion comprises a first strap connected to the first fabric portion by sewing or gluing, and a second strap disposed in parallel to the first strap and connected to the second fabric portion by sewing or gluing (Boyd, Fig. 2, #80, the internal vertical members of Boyd are considered to be “a first strap” and “a second strap”) Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,694,372 to Boyd in view of US Patent Application Publication 2008/0148488 to Wu. Claim 2. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plastic portion is connected to the inflatable body along a line, and the line has a closed shape (Boyd does not teach a weld line with a closed shape; however Wu teaches a weld line in a closed loop shape as seen in Fig. 2 at #60; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the closed loop weld shape of Wu in order to provide a different or more firm surface of the mattress, or alternatively as an obvious matter of design choice for aesthetic purposes; additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant has indicated this configuration as prior art in Applicant’s Fig. 1). Claim 3. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 2, wherein the plastic portion comprises a first strap, a second strap disposed in parallel to the first strap, a third strap disposed perpendicular to the first strap and the second strap, and a fourth strap disposed in parallel to the third strap (see Wu Fig. 1 which discloses multiple structures #6, each of which is considered to be two vertical straps). Claim 4. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first strap is longer than the third strap, the second strap and the first strap are substantially equal in length, and the fourth strap and the third strap are substantially equal in length (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the spacing of straps in Boyd Fig. 2 or in Wu Fig. 2 to be either closer or farther apart in order to provide a desired amount of firmness to the mattress). Claim 5. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 3, wherein the third strap adjoins the first strap and/or the second strap, and the fourth strap adjoins the first strap and/or the second strap (see Wu Fig. 2, #6). Claim 6. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first strap, the second strap, the third strap and the fourth strap are spaced from each other (see Wu Fig. 2, #6; each of the four sides of the structure is considered to be a strap). Claim 7. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 2, wherein the plastic portion is a sheet (Boyd Fig. 4, #90 attaches to upper surface #70 in Fig. 2; Boyd also discloses in column 1, lines 45-65 that this surface is made of vinyl material). Claim 8. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the plastic portion comprises a first strap, and a second strap disposed in parallel to the first strap; the first strap is connected to the inflatable body along a first line; the second strap is connected to the inflatable body along a second line (see Wu Fig. 2, #6, the vertical straps form a first and second line; compare to Applicant’s Fig. 3). Claim 9. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first line and the second line are similar in shape and are disposed in a symmetrical arrangement (see Wu Fig. 2, #6, compare to Applicant’s Fig. 3). Claim 10. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first line and the second line are identical in shape (see Wu Fig. 2, #6, compare to Applicant’s Fig. 3). Claim 11. The inflatable product as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first line and the second line are curved at ends thereof (as best understood, Applicant is claiming a rounded corner on weld line #50 as seen in Applicant’s Fig. 3; see Wu Fig. 2, #60) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 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. /MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 12, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593928
SPRING MODULES FOR AN ADJUSTABLE SLEEPING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582567
Medical Procedure Facilitation System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575991
SURGICAL CART SUPPORTING ONE OR MORE SURGICAL ROBOTIC ARMS AND INTERFACE MOVEABLY INTERCONNECTING SURGICAL CART WITH SURGICAL TABLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12551395
PERSON SUPPORT APPARATUSES INCLUDING HIP AND THIGH SUPPORT ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539243
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAINTAINING PATIENT POSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+41.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 595 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month