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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11, at two instances, the word “is” should be written as “are” following “armrest portions”; and
In line 8, the limitation ends in a semicolon. It makes claim 1 appear as a three-optioned list, separated by semicolons, with the final option following the “and/or” in line 12. In the office action filed 6/3/2026, a similar issue led to a lack of clarity in claim 5, which has since been corrected. If the “and/or” is simply intended to separate the two limitations that were added to claim 1 in the amendment, it is advised that the semicolon of line 8 be followed by the word “and” as well as the limitation beginning in line 9 begin with the word “wherein” to ensure the utmost clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN-2862845-Y) in view of Aquaglide Marketing, further in view of Brook (AU-3515601-A).
Li discloses an inflatable and foldable chair. Aquaglide Marking (hereinafter “Aquaglide”) discloses a drop-stitch material composition for inflatables. Brook discloses inflatable furnishing.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
PNG
media_image2.png
334
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2
Claim 1 – Li teaches a portable inflatable sofa (figure 2), comprising a sofa body,
wherein the sofa body is formed by folding an integrally-cut structure (figures 1 and 2), the sofa body is divided by folds into a backrest portion, a seat cushion portion, and armrest portions on two sides (figure 1), and the backrest portion and the armrest portions are configured to be folded upwards to form a state of being relatively perpendicular to the seat cushion portion (figure 2); and the inflatable sofa further comprises a connection strap (element 43 in figure 2), wherein the backrest portion is connected to the armrest portions on the two sides through the connection strap (in claim 5, “the said bench hassock (4) has set the fixing device (43), with the function of fixing and connecting the bench hassocks (4)”, the bench hassocks being the backrest and armrests per figure 1);
a joint between the armrest portions and the seat cushion portion, so that after the armrest portions is folded, the armrest portions is in a state of being relatively perpendicular to the seat cushion portion (in figure 2, the armrest portions are in a state of being relatively perpendicular to the seat cushion portion); and
a joint between the backrest portion and the seat cushion portion, so that after the backrest portion is folded, the backrest portion is in a state of being relatively perpendicular to the seat cushion portion (in figure 2, the backrest portion is in a state of being relatively perpendicular to the seat cushion portion).
While Li teaches the material of the sofa is inflatable, Li does not teach the sofa body is made of a drop-stitch air cushion material. Aquaglide teaches the sofa body is made of a drop-stitch air cushion material (Images 1 and 2 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a drop-stitch air cushion material, such as that taught by Aquaglide, in the disclosure of Li as it is a more rigid material for inflatable objects and is commonly used in water sport applications.
Li teaches a “connecting cloth on the folding line” in paragraph 1 of the “Specific execution examples” section of the disclosure, however neither Li nor Aquaglide teach a memory elastic sheet being arranged at the joints.
Brook teaches a memory elastic sheet (element 11 in figure 3, described in claim 7 as “an elastic material biasing the region of the base upper skin towards the region of the base lower skin”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an elastic material, such as that of the disclosure of Brook, to modify the “connecting cloth” of Li to ensure that, as the material stretches from a user sitting in the sofa, the “connecting cloth” returns to its original shape.
Claim 2 – Li does not teach the sofa body is made of a drop-stitch air cushion material, and therefore does not teach the layers of the material. Aquaglide teaches the sofa body comprises a drop-stitch fabric layer (“Drop-stitch core – aramid fibers” in Image 1 above), an airtight coating layer (“Drop-stitch core – woven polyester” in Image 1 above), a fusion layer (“Once the drop-stitch core is made, heat fusion is then used” in the third paragraph of Aquaglide’s article), and a polyvinyl chloride film layer (“Duratex” in Image 1 above, which can come in various materials, including PVC) in sequence from inside to outside, a cutting opening of the drop-stitch fabric layer is sealed by an edge sealing strip (“Inner seam tape” in Image 1 above), a decorative strip (“Tritex” in Image 1 above) is arranged on an outer side of the edge sealing strip, and the decorative strip is bonded to the polyvinyl chloride film layer on an upper side and a lower side, respectively (Image 2 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a drop-stitch air cushion material, such as that taught by Aquaglide, in the disclosure of Li as it is a more rigid material for inflatable objects and is commonly used in water sport applications.
Claim 9 – Li does not teach a non-slip wear pad is arranged on a lower end surface of the seat cushion portion. Aquaglide teaches a non-slip wear pad (“EVA deck pad” in Image 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the lower end surface of the disclosure of Li with a non-slip wear pad, such as that taught by Aquaglide, to ensure the sofa does not move while the user is sitting in it.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN-2862845-Y) in view of Aquaglide, further in view of Brook (AU-3515601-A) and Xu (CN-109820361-A).
Xu discloses an inflatable sofa.
Claim 3 – Li and Brook do not teach an arc-shaped transition opening is formed at a corner joint between the backrest portion and the armrest portions and the arc-shaped transition opening is concave inward, and a decorative strip at the arc-shaped transition opening is made of an elastic material or a pleated material.
Aquaglide teaches a decorative strip made of an elastic material or a pleated material (“Tritex” in Image 1 above, described as textured Duratex, which can come elastomeric), but does not teach an arc-shaped transition opening is formed at a corner joint between the backrest portion and the armrest portion and the arc-shaped transition opening is concave inward.
Xu teaches an arc-shaped transition opening is formed at a corner joint between the backrest portion and the armrest portion and the arc-shaped transition opening is concave inward (element 10 in figure 3).
Making the joint at which the backrest and armrest meet an arc shape prevents binding of the material in the corner, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Li with the arc-shaped transitions of Xu. It would have been obvious, when modifying the disclosure of Li with the decorative strip of Aquaglide, to also include it in the arc-shaped joint.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN-2862845-Y) in view of Aquaglide, further in view of Brook (AU-3515601-A) and Avihod (US-5445433-A).
Avihod discloses a chair back with recline adjustment straps.
Claim 7 – Li teaches the connection strap is a buckle (“the fixing connecting device 43 can be … a buckle device” in the fourth paragraph of the “Specific execution examples” section of the disclosure) but Li, Aquaglide, and Brook do not teach the connection strap comprises a first connection section arranged on the armrest portion on one side and a second connection section arranged on the armrest portion on another side, the first connection section is detachably connected to the second connection section through an insert buckle, and the first connection section and the second connection section comprise an adjustment strap and an adjustment buckle, respectively.
Avihod teaches the connection strap (element 38 in figure 2) comprises a first connection section arranged on the armrest portion on one side (figure 2) and a second connection section arranged on the armrest portion on another side (figure 2), the first connection section is detachably connected to the second connection section through an insert buckle (figure 6a), and the first connection section and the second connection section comprise an adjustment strap and an adjustment buckle, respectively (figure 6a).
Buckle straps, such as that taught by Avihod, are commonly known in the art, therefore when including a buckle strap as taught by Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a buckle strap such as that taught by Avihod.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN-2862845-Y) in view of Aquaglide, further in view of Brook (AU-3515601-A) and Panetis (US-20190298077-A1).
Panetis discloses a sleeping platform that starts flat but folds into an inclined seating surface.
Claim 8 – Li, Aquaglide, and Brook do not teach the connection strap is an elastic adjustment strap. Panetis teaches the connection strap is an elastic adjustment strap (element 28 in figure 1, described as “elastic securing straps” in paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use elastic adjustment straps, such as that taught by Panetis, in the disclosure of Li to ensure the straps are not rigid, allowing the user greater flexibility in reclining the inflatable sofa.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN-2862845-Y) in view of Aquaglide, further in view of Brook (AU-3515601-A) and Cooper (US-20200107640-A1).
Cooper discloses inflatable chairs.
Claim 10 – Li, Aquaglide, and Brook do not teach a D-shaped ring and an elastic pocket are arranged on an outer side of the armrest portion; and a top end of the backrest portion is provided with a handle.
Cooper teaches a D-shaped ring (element 37 in figure 2) and an elastic pocket (element 36 in figure 2) are arranged on an outer side of the armrest portions (figure 2); and a top end of the backrest portion is provided with a handle (element 34 in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Li with the D-shaped ring and elastic pocket of Cooper to provide the user with storage and amenities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant, on pages 5 and 6, argues that the intended use of the memory elastic sheet is to “prevent shape instability” and “improve portability”, and that Li’s connecting cloth is “passive and does not provide any active retaining force”. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. There is also no indication that the connecting cloth of Li wouldn’t prevent shape instability, improve portability, and provide active retaining force.
Applicant also argues, on pages 5 and 6, that Li’s connecting cloth is disposed on the outside rather than inside the folding connection portion. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, on page 7, Brook does not relate to shape retention at the folding connection portion and does not relate to assisting storage because its function is to constrain horizontal movement of the base upper skin relative to the base lower skin. Regardless of the intended use of the memory elastic sheet in Brook’s disclosure, Brook merely teaches the material at a joint is known in the art, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, on pages 7-9, Li and Brook’s connecting pieces connect different components and have different functions, and therefore it would not be obvious to user Brook’s material in the disclosure of Li. Applicant argues it would require a redesign of Li’s structure and function to incorporate the elastic material of Brook. Brook merely teaches the use of memory elastic material, at joints in portable inflatable devices, is old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a material known in the art to connect portions of inflatable devices. It should also be noted in regards to this argument that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant then argues, on page 10, that “the assisting storage function of the memory elastic sheet is not taught at all in Brook and amounts to an unexpected technical effect, and that Brook’s elastic material is not specifically used to assist storage and maintain a vertical state after folding. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
For at least the above reasons, claims 1-3 and 7-10 remain rejected. Claims 5 and 6 contain allowable subject matter, but are objected to for depending on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 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, DAVID DUNN can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights