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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,987,267 in view of Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727).
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 10,987,267 discloses all of the limitations of the currently pending claim 1 but does not include the first and second inflation limitation members disposed along a first line that is orthogonal to the first edge and the second inflation limitation member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation limitation member. Kappel teaches the first and second inflation limitation members disposed along a first line that is orthogonal to the first edge and the second inflation limitation member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation limitation member (see first or second annotated copies of Fig. 1 of Kappel below). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Kappel teaches the spot welds enable forming contours for comfort and versatility (see the abstract of Kappel).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, the phrase “wherein the high-friction portion disposed within the support portion” should be changed to read - - wherein the high-friction portion is disposed within the support portion - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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:
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-friction” in claims 16-17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner cannot determine the scope of the invention comprising “a high-friction material” because “a high-friction material” could include any material which is higher friction than another material. For example, the static coefficient of friction of silk is 0.25, rubber is 1.16, leather is 0.61, cotton is 0.3, PTFE is 0.04. Comparing the different materials, one of ordinary skill can see that leather would be considered a high-friction material relative to PTFE but would be considered a low-friction material when compared with rubber. The Examiner suggests either defining what the Applicant considers to be a high-friction material, canceling the limitations in the claims, or adding a relative portion of the apparatus which the high-friction material is higher than.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727).
Regarding Claim 1: Kappel discloses an inflatable device (inflatable blanket 10 of Kappel) comprising: a top sheet (upper sheet of material 50 of Kappel); a bottom sheet (lower sheet of material 80 of Kappel – Figs. 2A-3B) connected to the top sheet (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Kappel – “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”), the bottom sheet cooperating with the top sheet to define a cavity to be inflated (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Kappel – “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”); a first inflation-limiting member (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel pointing to one of the spot welds 60 labeled as 1st ILM) formed by first connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel); a second inflation-limiting member (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel pointing to a second one of the spot welds 60 labeled as 2nd ILM) formed by second connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel); wherein the first inflation-limiting member is disposed within a support portion of the inflatable device (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing a region indicated as the support portion), the support portion configured to have a top surface that is raised higher (compare Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel which shows the height of the surface of the inflatable device being higher with the larger spacing between welds 60) than an adjacent area (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the adjacent area labeled) of the inflatable device contiguous with the support portion when the cavity is inflated (compare Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel which shows the height of the surface of the inflatable device being higher with the larger spacing between welds 60); wherein the second inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area (see Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the positioning of the 2nd ILD within the adjacent area); wherein the adjacent area is contiguous with a first edge of the inflatable device (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); wherein the first inflation-limiting member and the second inflation-limiting member are disposed along a first line that is orthogonal to the first edge (not annotated but clearly shown in Fig. 1 of Kappel that the first edge extends orthogonal to an imaginary line connecting the 1st and 2nd ILM as annotated in Fig. 1 of Kappel) and the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation-limiting member (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: First Annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel for the first interpretation of Kappel in the rejection of Claims 1-7
PNG
media_image2.png
671
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2: Second Annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel for the second interpretation of Kappel in the rejection of Claims 1 (alternatively) and 8-12
Regarding Claim 2: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising: a third inflation-limiting member (as shown in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) formed by third connections (annotated 3rd ILM in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel), wherein the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the third inflation-limiting member and the first edge (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 3: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 2, wherein the first inflation-limiting member, the second inflation-limiting member, and the third inflation-limiting member are disposed along the first line and orthogonal with the first edge (not annotated but clearly shown in Fig. 1 of Kappel that the first edge extends orthogonal to an imaginary line connecting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ILM as annotated in Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 4: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising: a third inflation-limiting member (annotated 3rd ILM in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) formed by third connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (welds 60 - see at least Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel), wherein the third inflation-limiting member is disposed within the support portion (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 5: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 4, wherein the third inflation-limiting member and the second inflation-limiting member are disposed along the first line (not annotated but clearly shown in Fig. 1 of Kappel that the first edge extends orthogonal to an imaginary line connecting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ILM as annotated in Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 6: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 5, further comprising: a fourth inflation-limiting member (annotated 4rd ILM in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) formed by fourth connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (welds 60 - see at least Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel), wherein the fourth inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 7: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 6, wherein a first distance between the first inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member is different than a second distance between the second inflation-limiting member and the fourth inflation-limiting member (compare the distances in Fig. 1 between the annotated 1st ILM – 3rd ILM and 2nd ILM and 4th ILM).
Regarding Claim 8: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising: a third inflation-limiting member (see the second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) formed by third connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel), wherein the third inflation-limiting member is disposed within the support portion (see second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); and a fourth inflation-limiting member formed by fourth connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) wherein the fourth inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area (see second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); wherein the fourth inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the third inflation-limiting member (see second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
PNG
media_image2.png
671
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2: Second Annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel for the second interpretation of Kappel in the rejection of Claims 1 (alternatively) and 8-12
Regarding Claim 9: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 8, wherein the third inflation-limiting member and the fourth inflation-limiting member are disposed along a second line that is orthogonal to the first edge (although the second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel does not include first and second orthogonal lines, it is clear that the third and fourth inflation limiting members, labeled 3rd ILM and 4th ILM are positioned along an imaginary second line which is orthogonal to the first edge).
Regarding Claim 10: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 9, wherein the first line and the second line are parallel (although the second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel does not include first and second orthogonal lines, it is clear that the third and fourth inflation limiting members, labeled 3rd ILM and 4th ILM are positioned along an imaginary second line which is orthogonal to the first edge and parallel to the first imaginary line).
Regarding Claim 11: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 9, further comprising a fifth inflation-limiting member formed by fifth connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see the second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel), wherein the second inflation-limiting member and the fourth inflation-limiting member are disposed between the fifth inflation-limiting member and the first edge (see the second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 12: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 11, wherein the third inflation-limiting member, the fourth inflation-limiting member, and the fifth inflation-limiting member are disposed along the second line (see the second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 13: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising a seam connecting the top sheet and the bottom sheet at the first edge (Col. 2, lines 36-39 of Kappel - “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”), wherein the second inflation-limiting member is spaced apart from the seam (see first and second annotated Fig. 1 of Kappel showing 2nd ILM offset from the peripheral first edge).
Regarding Claim 14: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 13, wherein the top sheet is raised a first distance at the seam (not shown but Kappel describes sealing the upper and lower sheets of material together around peripheral edges which would create a first height of the upper sheet relative to the lower sheet) and a second distance at the adjacent area (see first and second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel and Fig. 3B showing an inflated side view of the blanket), wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (see the height of the upper sheet in Fig. 3B of Kappel and note that the sealing of two sheets together will result in a lower height than the raised area shown in Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 18: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, wherein a first region at the first inflation-limiting member and a second region at the second inflation-limiting member are configured to inflate at different rates (the larger spacing between welds 60 in the annotated support portion compared to the smaller spacing between welds 60 in the annotated adjacent area would cause different rates of inflation in the respective areas – see the first and second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727) in view of Ragan et al. (US Patent No. 5,125,238 – hereinafter Ragan).
Regarding Claim 16: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a high-friction portion including a high-friction material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, inflatable products (see the abstract of Ragan), Ragan teaches further comprising a high-friction portion including a high-friction material (fibrous layer 16 as described in Col. 3, lines 18-21 of Ragan – “This fibrous layer 16 provides a comfortable surface in contact with the patient and its high frictional characteristic helps keep the blanket in place on the patient.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Kappel (directed to an inflatable device) and Ragan (directed to an inflatable device with additional fibrous layer) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at an inflatable product with regions of varying heights and a fibrous layer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the fibrous layer “provides a comfortable surface in contact with the patient and its high frictional characteristic helps keep the blanket in place on the patient” (Col. 3, lines 18-21 of Ragan).
Regarding Claim 17: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 16, wherein the high-friction portion disposed within the support portion (via the bonding of fibrous layer 16 to the lower side of the sheet 14 of Ragan as applied to Kappel).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727) in view of Reiners et al. (US Patent No. 9,554,956 – hereinafter Reiners).
Regarding Claim 19: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a plurality of handles, wherein the plurality of handles includes at least 8 handles, wherein a first subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along the first edge of the inflatable device and a second subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along a second edge of the inflatable device, the second edge contiguous with the first edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, inflatable devices (see the abstract of Reiners), Reiners teaches further comprising a plurality of handles (handles 30 of Reiners), wherein the plurality of handles includes at least 8 handles (see 10 handles shown in Fig. 5 of Reiners), wherein a first subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along the first edge of the inflatable device and a second subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along a second edge of the inflatable device (see handles placed on each side of Reiners), the second edge contiguous with the first edge (see contiguous edges of Reiners including a subset of handles).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Kappel (directed toward an inflatable device) and Reiners (directed toward an inflatable device with handles) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at an inflatable device with areas of varying height and handles for aid in shifting a person. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because handles enable transport/repositing of the device relative to the person or the support and the variety of handles enable shifting from different areas (Col. 4, lines 7-10 of Reiners).
Regarding Claim 20: Kappel in view of Reiners make obvious the inflatable device of claim 19, wherein the second edge is contiguous with the support portion (see contiguous edges of Reiners including a subset of handles).
Claim(s) 1 (alternatively) and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727) in view of Bosc (FR 1,259,308).
Regarding Claim 1: Bosc discloses an inflatable device (see the abstract of Bosc) comprising: a top sheet (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); a bottom sheet connected to the top sheet (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); the bottom sheet cooperating with the top sheet to define a cavity to be inflated (as described in the abstract of Bosc); [….] a support portion (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc) [….], an adjacent area (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc) [….] the support portion configured to have a top surface that is raised higher than an adjacent area of the inflatable device contiguous with the support portion when the cavity is inflated (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); […] wherein the adjacent area is contiguous with a first edge of the inflatable device (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); [….].
Bosc does not disclose a first inflation-limiting member formed by first connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet; a second inflation-limiting member formed by second connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet; wherein the first inflation-limiting member is disposed within a support portion of the inflatable device, wherein the second inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area; wherein the first inflation-limiting member and the second inflation-limiting member are disposed along a first line that is orthogonal to the first edge and the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation-limiting member.
PNG
media_image3.png
383
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, inflatable devices (see the abstract of Kappel), Kappel discloses an inflatable device (inflatable blanket 10 of Kappel) comprising: a top sheet (upper sheet of material 50 of Kappel); a bottom sheet (lower sheet of material 80 of Kappel – Figs. 2A-3B) connected to the top sheet (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Kappel – “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”), the bottom sheet cooperating with the top sheet to define a cavity to be inflated (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Kappel – “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”); a first inflation-limiting member (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel pointing to one of the spot welds 60 labeled as 1st ILM) formed by first connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel); a second inflation-limiting member (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel pointing to a second one of the spot welds 60 labeled as 2nd ILM) formed by second connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel); wherein the first inflation-limiting member is disposed within a support portion of the inflatable device (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing a region indicated as the support portion), the support portion configured to have a top surface that is raised higher (compare Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel which shows the height of the surface of the inflatable device being higher with the larger spacing between welds 60) than an adjacent area (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the adjacent area labeled) of the inflatable device contiguous with the support portion when the cavity is inflated (compare Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel which shows the height of the surface of the inflatable device being higher with the larger spacing between welds 60); wherein the second inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area (see Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the positioning of the 2nd ILD within the adjacent area); wherein the adjacent area is contiguous with a first edge of the inflatable device (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); wherein the first inflation-limiting member and the second inflation-limiting member are disposed along a first line that is orthogonal to the first edge (not annotated but clearly shown in Fig. 1 of Kappel that the first edge extends orthogonal to an imaginary line connecting the 1st and 2nd ILM as annotated in Fig. 1 of Kappel) and the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation-limiting member (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Bosc (directed to an inflatable support) and Kappel (directed to an inflatable device with inflation limitation members to form contours) and arrived at an inflatable device formed with one inflatable cavity with contours formed by inflation limitation members. 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 (e.g. forming contoured areas in an inflatable product by varying the distance between welds) with a reasonable expectation of success 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 (e.g. a comfort product can be formed and inflated by one port while still including areas of different heights.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15: Bosc in view of Kappel make obvious the inflatable device of claim 1, wherein the support portion is a head support portion (see the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 4,149,541 to Gammons et al. is cited for teaching an inflation device with regions of different thicknesses.
US Patent No. 5,405,370 to Irani is cited for teaching an inflatable device with height restriction elements.
US Patent No. 5,728,145 to Phlipot et al. is cited for teaching an inflatable device with inflation limiting elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights