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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200378519 Y1, hereafter “KR03”.
Regarding claim 1, KR03 discloses an object holding assembly (Fig. 2) applied in an inflatable product (mattress), the inflatable product comprising an inflatable sheet (2, 3) configured to enclose an inflatable cavity (6), and the inflatable sheet having a first fixing portion (2) and a second fixing portion (3) arranged opposite the first fixing portion, wherein the object holding assembly comprises: an object holding cylinder (5) having an object storage opening (the opening at the top end of 5 with reference to Fig. 2) and an object storage cavity (the cavity formed by 5) in communication with the object storage opening, wherein an edge of the object storage opening is configured to be fixed to the first fixing portion (as shown in Fig. 2); and a locking mechanism (4’, 7’, 8’) comprising a first cooperation portion (8’) and a second cooperation portion (4’, 7’) that are cooperated and locked with each other, wherein the first cooperation portion is arranged at an end of the object holding cylinder away from the object storage opening, and the second cooperation portion is arranged at the second fixing portion. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 2, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 1, wherein the edge of the object storage opening is fixed to the first fixing portion by welding. (product-by-process)
Regarding claim 8, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 1, further comprising a holding plate (8), the holding plate is arranged in the object holding cylinder to separate the object holding cylinder into a first cylinder portion (the portion of 5 that is below the lower-most portion of 8) and a second cylinder portion (the portion of 5 that is above the lower-most portion of 8), and the first cylinder portion and the second cylinder portion are arranged along an axial direction of the object holding cylinder. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 9, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 8, wherein the holding plate is provided with a ventilation hole (the hole through the center of 8), and the ventilation hole is in communication with the first cylinder portion and the second cylinder portion. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 11, KR03 further discloses an inflatable product (Fig. 1), comprising: an inflatable sheet (2, 3) configured to enclose an inflatable cavity (6); and the object holding assembly of claim 1.
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) 3, 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR03.
Regarding claim 3, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 1, wherein the first cooperation portion is a female cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion is a male cooperation portion (as shown in Figs. 2-3), but fails to disclose wherein the first cooperation portion is a male cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion is a female cooperation portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the first cooperation portion of KR03 to be a male cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion of KR03 to be a female cooperation portion since applicant has not disclosed that having the first cooperation portion to be a male cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion to be a female cooperation portion solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that having the first cooperation portion to be a male cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion to be a female cooperation portion, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, para. [0044] of Applicant’s specification states:
Further, the first cooperation portion may be a male cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion may be a female cooperation portion. Of course, on the contrary, the first cooperation portion is a female cooperation portion, and the second cooperation portion is a male cooperation portion.
Regarding claim 4, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 3, wherein the first cooperation portion comprises a plurality of first inserting portions (as modified, there would necessarily be multiple portions around the perimeter of 8’), the plurality of first inserting portions are circumferentially spaced on the end of the object holding cylinder away from the object storage opening (Figs. 2-3), the plurality of first inserting portions encloses an inserting groove (the groove that the second cooperation portion would be inserted within), the second cooperation portion comprises a plurality of second inserting portions (as modified, there would necessarily be multiple portions around the perimeter of 4’/7’), the plurality of second inserting portions are circumferentially spaced on the second fixing portion (Figs. 2-3), and the plurality of second inserting portions can be inserted into the inserting groove (as modified above, Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein a hardness of the holding plate is greater than a hardness of the holding cylinder.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the hardness of the holding plate is greater than a hardness of the holding cylinder of KR03 since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a suitable material based on user defined criteria.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR03 in view of Huang (US 2021/0363768).
Regarding claim 6, KR03 further discloses the object holding assembly of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the first cooperation portion is a snap-fit boss, the second cooperation portion is a snap-fit ring, a side of the snap-fit ring has a snap-fit gap, and the snap-fit boss can be snapped in the snap-fit ring through the snap-fit gap.
Huang teaches an assembly wherein the first cooperation portion is a snap-fit boss, the second cooperation portion is a snap-fit ring, a side of the snap-fit ring has a snap-fit gap, and the snap-fit boss can be snapped in the snap-fit ring through the snap-fit gap. (para. [0047]; Figs. 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the first and second cooperation portions of KR03 such that the first cooperation portion is a snap-fit boss, the second cooperation portion is a snap-fit ring, a side of the snap-fit ring has a snap-fit gap, and the snap-fit boss can be snapped in the snap-fit ring through the snap-fit gap as taught by Huang since the equivalence of a screwed connection and a snap-fit connection is recognized for their use in the fluid handling art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide an alternative connection means that is simple to attach and reattach and is cost effective.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753