DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 225, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the lined-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on May 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of Species 1B, directed to a structure with nonwoven fibers, with traverse and Species 2A, directed to a structure with obliquely angled fibers, without traverse are also acknowledged.
The traversal of the restriction requirement amount inventions is on the ground(s) that the different inventions are allegedly not distinct because Applicant asserts the conclusion that the inventions “do not encompass overlapping subject matter” is incorrect due to it being possible for a single device to infringe on all three independent claims. However, as stated in MPEP 806.05, “related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention.” Therefore, the standard is not if a single device can infringe on all three groups of inventions, but rather if the inventions would infringe on each other. As discussed in the Requirement, the independent claims in each of the identified groups of inventions each recite one or more features that are not recited to be part of the other independent claims from the other groups of inventions. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 12 (and corresponding dependent claims) are distinct from one another because they would not infringe on each other.
Applicant has also argued that the restriction did not identify how the groups of inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. However, this assertion is not correct. As just discussed above and discussed in the Requirement, the independent claims in each of the groups of inventions each recite one or more features, which were identified in the Requirement, that are not recited to be part of the other independent claims from the other groups of inventions. Therefore, the groups of inventions are distinct.
Applicant has also argued that there would be no search burden because the groups of inventions are all directed to the same core concept and that examination of the concept would encompass all three groups of inventions. However, as discussed, in the restriction requirement, a serious search and examination (i.e. which includes consideration) burden exists because the inventions are classified differently and would require an excessive number of separate search queries and excessive consideration time if examined together.
Applicant has further argued that it is not proper to separate Species 1A and 1B, respectively directed to a “mesh” and a “nonwoven” structure, because the species are not patentably distinct and describe the same embodiment and because the terms “mesh” and a “nonwoven” are used interchangeably. This argument is persuasive and the requirement of an election between Species 1A and 1B is withdrawn.
In summary, the restriction requirement among Inventions I, II, and II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL, and the species election requirement between Species 1A and 1B is withdrawn. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration. Any claims including all of the limitations of an allowable claim, if identified, will be considered for rejoinder upon allowance.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites that an “inflatable structure is inflatable from an uninflated configuration to an inflated configuration”, followed by “wherein when the inflatable structure is in the uninflated configuration, the flexible shell is configured to collapse, and when the inflatable structure is in the inflated configuration, the flexible shell is configured to expand”. The recitation that the structure is “inflatable from an uninflated configuration to an inflated configuration” implies that inflation occurs when the structure transitions from the uninflated to the inflated configuration. However, the recitation that the “shell is configured to collapse” when the structure is in its “uninflated configuration” implies that the structure can collapse further when it is in its uninflated configuration, and the recitation that the shell is “configured to expand” when the structure is in its inflated configuration implies that the structure can expand further after it has been inflated. As such, the claim appears to be self-contradictory. Furthermore, it is not clear what specific structures or properties would qualify the shell for being “configured to” collapse or expand in the uninflated and inflated configurations.
Similar to the above discussion of what the shell is “configured” to do in different configurations, claim 1 also recites limitations about the fibers being “configured to be non-tensioned” or “configured to be tensioned”, when the shell is collapsed or expanded. However, given that the fibers are non-tensioned when the shell is collapsed and are tensioned when the shell is expanded, it is not clear what additional structure is required or qualifies the fibers as being “configured to be” non-tensioned or tensioned in the respective configurations, which implies that further non-tensioning or tensioning can occur.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitations quoted above are interpreted herein as meaning that “when the inflatable structure is in the uninflated configuration, the flexible shell is d, and when the inflatable structure is in the inflated configuration, the flexible shell is ed”, and that the fibers “are are
The meaning of claim 2 is unclear because it recites “none of the plurality of fibers penetrate the shell”. As the instant disclosure teaches that the fiber material may be produced from the same material as the shell (Applicant’s published application, par. 36), and that the whole structure is formed by additive manufacturing (Applicant’s published application, par. 35), it is not clear what specific structure is meant to be excluded from the claim limitation because it is not clear what, specifically, is meant by the fibers “penetrating the shell”. In particular, it is not clear how a fiber that adjoins and extends away from the shell differs in structure from a fiber that extends into, i.e. which could reasonably be considered “penetrating”, and away from the shell that that is made of the same material. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted herein as excluding fibers that extend completely through the shell such that portions of the fiber project/extend from each side of the shell rather than excluding fibers that merely extend into but not through the shell (note: fibers having an end that cannot specifically be identified as not being part of the shell are also not considered herein to be excluded). Appropriate correction and/or explanation are required.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from and require all of the limitations of claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0261739).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Taylor teaches inflatable structures (33, 100) comprising a flexible shell (40, 110) having an internal surface defining a cavity and an external surface (Abstract; Figs. 4-8, 10A-B, 12 A-N, 13, etc.). The structure may be filled with a fluid, such as air, and may include a valve that allows users to increase or decrease fluid pressure (par. 50, 66, 67), thereby allowing the structure to expand or collapse with increasing or decreasing pressure. As such, Taylor’s inflatable structure is inflatable from an “uninflated configuration” to an “inflated configuration”, wherein the flexible shell is expanded in the inflated configuration and at least partially collapsed in the uninflated configuration.
As Taylor teaches that a user can add or remove fluid from the chamber with the valve (just discussed) and as the claim does not recite specific levels of collapse or expansion, intermediate levels or fluid filling, wherein the chamber is capable of receiving more fluid and being further expanded and/or wherein the chamber is capable of releasing more fluid and being further collapsed, may be considered to correspond to the recited “inflated configuration”, wherein “the flexible shell is configured to expand” and “uninflated configuration”, wherein “the flexible shell is configured to collapse”. As noted above, it is not clear what specific structures are considered to qualify an inflatable article as being “configured to” inflate/expand or deflate/collapse as claimed. Taylor’s inflatable product is considered to meet the “configured to” requirements because it includes a flexible shell that is capable of receiving or releasing fluid and a valve that allows such fluid transfers to occur.
Taylor’s products each further include tethers (53, 123) in their cavity that extend from the upper part (i.e. a “first location”) of the cavity to the lower part (i.e. a “second location”) of the cavity (Figs. 4-8, 10A-B, 12 A-N, 13, etc.; par. 64, 71, 74). The tethers may be fibers or textiles comprising fibers (par. 73, 86). The fibers necessarily have a first end portion, a second end portion, and a length extending from the first end portion to the second end portion. The fiber tethers (53, 63) are secured via their first and second end portions to respective first and second locations within the shell (40) (Figs. 4-8, 10A-B, 12 A-N). The textile tethers (120) are secured via upper and lower ends to respective first and second locations within the shell (110) (Fig. 13). The tethers, including their fibers, are tensioned and constrain the expanded shell to a fiber-constrained shape when the product is in an inflated configuration and are non-tensioned when the shell is in a uninflated configuration (par. 69, 74, 85). As shown in Figure 12K and discussed by Taylor, the fiber-constrained shell can have a shape wherein at least a portion of the external shell surface is concave (Fig. 12K, par. 79).
The fiber-shaped tethers may be secured to the top of the shell at their first end portion via an upper plate or upper tie piece and to the bottom of the shell at their second end portion via a lower plate or lower tie piece (par. 78, 79). The plates may be secured to the shell via thermo-bonding (i.e. fusing), the tie pieces may be secured to the shell with bonding, and the tethers may be secured to the plates with thermo-bonding (par. 64, 71, 79). Although Taylor does not explicitly teach securing the fiber-shaped tethers to tie elements by thermo-bonding or securing the tie elements to the shell by thermo-bonding, which may be considered a difference from the current invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize thermo-bonding (i.e. fusing) to make such connections because Taylor teaches that the structures may be adjoined by bonding and that thermo-bonding is an appropriate bonding mechanism for forming joints in the disclosed products. As no composition or structure of the “flexible shell” is claimed, Taylor’s plates or tie elements to which fiber-shaped tethers are joined may be considered part of the shell. As such, Taylor teaches or renders obvious an inflatable structure including fiber-shaped tethers that are fused either directly (if the plates and ties are considered part of the shell) or indirectly to the shell.
As noted above, the tethers in Taylor’s inflatable structure may also be textiles comprising fibers (par. 77, 84, 86). The textile tethers may be nonwoven and/or mesh materials (par. 86) and may directly adjoin the flexible shell at an upper end area and at a lower end area by thermos-bonding (par. 84, 87). Although Taylor does not explicitly teach that fibers forming the textiles are bonded to and extend from the upper part (i.e. a “first location”) of the shell to the lower part (i.e. a “second location”) of the shell via their first and second ends, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, at least some individual fibers within the textiles are expected to connect to and extend from the upper part of the shell to the lower part of the shell because Taylor depicts the textiles (120) as connecting at an upper end to the upper portion of the shell (111) and at a lower end to the lower portion of the shell (112) (Fig. 13). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the textiles and their fibers to be arranged such that individual fibers within the textiles connect to and extend from the upper and lower portions of the shells as claimed because Taylor teaches that individual fibers arranged in this manner (discussed above) are capable of providing tension and support to his structure (par. 74) and in order to achieve such benefits with textile tethers.
The teachings of Taylor might be considered to differ from the current invention in that an inflatable structure including all of the features discussed above is not explicitly exemplified. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a structure including any or all of the above discussed features (e.g. an inflatable structure including a flexible shell with a concave external surface shape, fiber and/or textile fibers arranged and functioning as discussed and claimed, and a valve for increasing or decreasing internal fluid pressure) because Taylor either explicitly teaches each element/feature is appropriate and useful for her product or renders obvious including each element in the disclosed inflatable structures for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Taylor makes no disclosure of the fibers in her structure penetrating the shell. Therefore, Taylor’s inflatable structures are presumed to be free of fibers that penetrate the shell.
Regarding claim 3, although Taylor does not explicitly teach making the fibers in the products discussed above to have a cross-sectional dimension that tapers, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Taylor does teach that the fibers may have an oval cross section (par. 73). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fibers having an oval cross section as/in the tethers in the structure(s) discussed above because Taylor explicitly teaches that fibers with oval cross-sections are appropriate for her product. As ovals have a width/height that tapers from the center outwardly along their long axis, Taylor’s oval fibers have a cross-sectional dimension that is tapered.
Regarding claim 4, Taylor teaches that her inflatable products are sealed such that gas escape is prevented (par. 50, 64). Therefore, the shell of Taylor’s inflatable product is air-tight.
Regarding claims 5-7, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to configure Taylor’s textile tethers, which comprise fibers, to have a mesh or nonwoven structure. Although Taylor does not explicitly describe the fibers tethers an inflatable structure discussed above to be in a “mesh structure” or explicitly exemplify a structure including the all of above-discussed features to have fiber tethers that extend transvers to each other and oblique to the shell, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Taylor does teach configuring fiber tethers (53) in an expanded inflatable structure to extend at oblique angles to the shell (40), wherein some fibers extend transvers to others (Fig. 12D). Taylor also teaches that arranging the tethers in a sloping or diagonal orientation with respect to the shell enhances the overall stability of such a structure (par. 74). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the fibers in the inflatable structure(s) discussed above to extend at oblique angles from the shell when the shell is expanded, wherein the fibers extend in diagonal orientations (i.e. at oblique angles with respect to the shell), and to extend transverse to each other as shown in Figure 12D because Taylor explicitly teaches such fiber orientations to be appropriate for her product and in order to enhance the stability of the product. As Applicant’s disclosure teaches that fibers oriented transverse to each other in an inflatable structure form a nonwoven, “fibrous mesh” (Applicant’s published application, par. 33), Taylor’s transversely-oriented fibers, which are not woven together and which cross each other as shown in Figure 12D, qualify as a “nonwoven fibrous mesh” in the context of the instantly claimed/disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Taylor differ from the current invention in that an inflatable structure having the features discussed above and including fibers made of a “fiber material” and a shell made of a “shell material”, wherein the “fiber material” and the “shell material” are the same, is not explicitly exemplified. However, Taylor does teach that a variety of different materials may be used for each of the shell and the fibers (par. 68, 73). For example, Taylor discloses that the shell may comprise polyester (i.e. a “shell material”) and that the fibers may comprise polyester (i.e. “fiber material”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the shell and the fibers of the inflatable product(s) discussed above from polyester because Taylor explicitly teaches that polyester is an appropriate material for the shell and fibers of such products. The product rendered obvious by the prior art includes a shell made of a “shell material” and fibers made of a “fiber material”, wherein the “shell material” and the “fiber material” are the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights