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 .
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, 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perla. Perla discloses in the Figures and specification a wearable inflatable costume comprising an inflatable costume main body 1 having a plurality of side walls encircling an inflation chamber, ad a strap assembly 9 connected to the inflatable main body so as to form a wearing space surrounded by the inflatable body and the strap assembly.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, the strap assembly of Perla comprises a first strap 11 and a second strap 12, each strap having an end attached to an upper portion of the inflatable body and an end attached to a lower portion of the inflatable body as recited. With respect to claim 19, as shown in the Figures the inflatable main body of Perla is animal shaped (in particular in the shape of butterfly wings).
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 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perla in view of Shaffa. Perla discloses the limitations of claims 3 and 5 with the exception of the provision of first and second adjustment buckles to the straps as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Shaffa at col. 1, line 66 to col. 2, line 2, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of allowing a user to adjust a length of each of the straps. With respect to claims 14-18, the claims recite customary buckle and strap configurations which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perla in view of Jastrab. Perla discloses the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of an elastic strap assembly. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Jastrab at col. 5, lines 47-65, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of allowing a user to more easy don and remove the inflatable device.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perla. With respect to claim 7, the recited shaping portion is considered to be an obvious variant on the central portion 20a of Perla, which provides a spacing between the walls of the inflatable portions of Perla. With respect to claims 8 and 9, the recited configuration of the shaping portion in conjunction with the elements of the inflatable portions is also considered to be an obvious variant on the teachings of Perla, as well as an obvious rearrangement of parts under MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perla in view of DeGrasse. Perla discloses the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a light string inside the inflatable device as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by DeGrasse at paragraph [0020], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing an additional decorative element to the device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perla in view of Gu. Perla discloses the claim limitations with the exception of the use of polyester fiber in the inflatable device. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Gu at paragraph [0031], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
March 10, 2026