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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that McClintock does not have a component that corresponds to the bottom sheet. Examiner disagrees as paragraph [0031] clearly discloses a bottom face similar to the face 7 and states that the bottom face is not illustrated which is why it is not shown in the Figures and no corresponding callout number was provided.
Applicant argues that McClintock fails to disclose the periphery of at least one outer layer connected to the extension belt and that there is no indication that the edge strip 21 (analogous to the extension belt) is connected to at lest one outer layer. Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0038] of McClintock clearly discloses that the pillow top (6, analogous to the covering) is made of more than one layer and Fig. 2 clearly shows that the peripheral edge (11) of the pillow top (6) is connected to the edge strip 21 (analogous to the extension belt) through the zipper. Applicant argues that the “extension belt recited in Claim 1 is integrated with the lateral confining sheet to improve the integrity of the inflatable body and a (sic) simplify the manufacturing process” but this is not found in the claims. Applicant argues that the repeated citations to paragraph [0038] do not disclose a periphery of the outer layer is connected to the extension belt, the inflatable body, and the top sheet. Not only do the claims do not require that the periphery of the outer layer be connected to each of the extension belt, the inflatable body, and the top sheet, but this is not why paragraph [0038] is cited. Paragraph [0038] is used to show the disclosure of a plurality of layers in the covering and it is Fig. 2 that shows that that the peripheral edge (11) of the pillow top (6) is connected to the edge strip 21 (analogous to the extension belt) through the zipper.
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, 6, 12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2005/0022307 (McClintock et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, McClintock et al. discloses an inflatable bed comprising:
an inflatable body (5) comprising:
a top sheet (7);
a bottom sheet; and
a lateral confining sheet (17) connected to the top sheet (7) and the bottom sheet;
an extension belt (21) extending upwardly from the top edge of the lateral confining sheet (17); and
a covering (6) connected to the inflatable body (5) and disposed over the top sheet (7), the covering (6) comprising:
at least one outer layer (paragraph [0038]), and
an inner layer (batting, paragraph [0038]) connected to the outer layer (paragraph [0038]),
wherein a periphery of the at least one outer layer (paragraph [0038]) is fixedly or detachably connected to the inflatable body (5), the periphery (11) of the at least one outer layer (paragraph [0038] discloses multiple layers as part of covering (6)) extends to a periphery of the top sheet (7), the periphery of the top sheet (7) is connected to a top edge of the lateral confining sheet (17), the periphery of the bottom sheet is connected to a bottom edge of the lateral confining sheet (17), and the periphery of the at least one outer layer (paragraph [0038]) is connected to the extension belt (21).
With regard to claim 2, McClintock et al. discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 1, wherein the at least one outer layer (paragraph [0038]) of the covering (6) includes a first outer layer (paragraph [0038]) and a second outer layer (paragraph [0038]), the periphery of the first outer layer (paragraph [0038]) is connected to the periphery of the second outer layer (paragraph [0038]), and the inner layer (batting, paragraph [0038]) is disposed between the first outer layer (paragraph [0038]) and the second outer layer (paragraph [0038]).
With regard to claim 6, McClintock et al. discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 1, wherein the periphery of the at least one outer layer (paragraph [0038]) is detachably connected to the inflatable body (5) via a zipper (15), a reclosable fastener, or a snap fastener (Fig.’s 5A-5C).
With regard to claim 12, McClintock et al. discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 1, wherein the extension belt (21) is made from a separate sheet of material and is connected to the lateral confining sheet (17) by welding (paragraph [0035]).
With regard to claim 16, McClintock et al. discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 2, wherein the inner layer (batting, paragraph [0038]) fills a space defined between the first outer layer (paragraph [0038]) and the second outer layer (paragraph [0038]).
With regard to claim 17, McClintock et al. discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 2, wherein the covering (6) includes a detachable mechanism (15) configured to detachably connect the periphery of the covering (6) to the periphery of the top sheet (7), wherein the covering (6) is reversible such that first outer layer (paragraph [0038]) is outwardly exposed when the covering (6) is connected in a first state and the second outer layer (paragraph [0038]) is outwardly exposed when the covering (6) is connected in a second state, wherein the second state is reversed relative to the first state.
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) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClintock et al. in view of USPAP 2002/0112291 (Barman et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 7, McClintock et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the at least one outer layer is a polymer material layer and includes polyvinyl chloride, thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, or nylon. McClintock et al. does disclose the covering being made of natural or synthetic fabric (paragraph [0038]), but does not disclose what the natural or synthetic fabrics are.
Barman et al. teaches a mattress topper made of natural or synthetic fibers wherein the natural and synthetic fibers include wool, cotton, polyester, polyurethanes and latex.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of McClintock et al. by using the materials as taught in Barman et al. for the purposes of using known examples of natural and/or synthetic fibers known to be appropriate for bedding.
With regard to claim 8, the McClintock et al. modification with regard to claim 7 discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 1, wherein the at least one outer layer is a fabric layer and includes cotton fiber, wool fiber, silk fiber, hemp fiber, regenerated fiber, polyester fiber, polyamide fiber, polyacrylonitrile fiber, polyvinyl alcohol fiber, polypropylene fiber, polyurethane fiber, or inorganic fiber.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClintock et al.
With regard to claim 11, McClintock et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the extension belt and the lateral confining sheet are made from the same sheet of material.
Note that the claimed phrase “made from the same sheet of material” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the extension belt and the lateral confining sheet are made from the same sheet of material. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference, see MPEP 2113. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, even though McClintock et al. is silent as to the process used to form the extension belt and the lateral confining sheet, it appears that the product of McClintock et al. would be the same or similar as the apparatus claimed.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClintock et al. in view of USPAP 2022/0202198 (Li hereinafter).
With regard to claim 13, McClintock et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the top sheet, the bottom sheet, the lateral confining sheet, and the extension belt are made of polyvinyl chloride, thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate or nylon. McClintock et al. does not disclose the material of these components.
Li teaches an inflatable mattress with first tensioning members (260), second tensioning members (240, 250), a top sheet (210), a bottom sheet (220) and a lateral confining sheet (230) wherein all of these components are made from a PVC or TPU material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of McClintock et al. by using the materials as taught in Li for the purposes of using known examples of materials for inflatable bedding having a reasonable expectation of success. It would also have been obvious to provide the first and second tensioning members as shown in Li for the purpose of increasing stability (paragraphs [0037] and [0046]).
With regard to claim 14, the McClintock et al. modification with regard to claim 13 discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 1, wherein the inflatable body further comprises a plurality of first tensioning members (260) disposed within the inflatable body and that connect the top sheet (7) to the bottom sheet.
With regard to claim 15, the McClintock et al. modification with regard to claim 13 discloses the inflatable bed according to claim 14, wherein the inflatable body further comprises a plurality of second tensioning members (240, 250), and each of the plurality of second tensioning members (240, 250) connects either the top sheet (7) to the lateral confining sheet (17) or connects the bottom sheet to the lateral confining sheet (17).
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 AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 C. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights