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 § 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corners" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 9-10, in that claims 9-10 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1, claims 9-10 are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top and bottom edges" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 9-10, in that claims 9-10 depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 1, claims 9-10 are similarly rejected.
Claim 2, discloses “an integrated textile process” but neither the claim nor the Specification discloses what an “integrated textile process” is, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the fixing layers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the length direction and width direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, discloses “each of the partition layers is annular and inclined” but fails to disclose what each of the partition layers are inclined in reference to, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the corners" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the top and bottom edges" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the same corner" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side opening" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claims 7-8, in that claims 7-8 depend, either directly or indirectly, to claim 7, claims 7-8 are similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side of the bed cover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claim 8, in that claim 8 depends from claim 7, claim 8 is similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bottom edge of the side bag" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claim 8, in that claim 8 depends from claim 7, claim 8 is similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side opening" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regard to claim 8, in that claim 8 depends from claim 7, claim 8 is similarly rejected.
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, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 116831411 (Zhong et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 1, insofar as claim 1 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses a high-stability wire-drawing enhanced air mattress (Fig. 1 and 2), comprising a bed body, wherein a main inflatable chamber (100) is provided in the bed body; both the corners of the top and bottom edges of the bed body are separated by partition layers (9, 10) so that two annular auxiliary inflatable chambers (200, 300) are formed around the main inflatable chamber (100), and both the two auxiliary inflatable chambers (200, 300) are communicated with the main inflatable chamber (100); two fixed layers (1, 2) are configured to be spaced inside the main inflatable chamber (100); the two fixed layers (1, 2) are connected to each other through a plurality of wire drawings (6), one of the fixed layers is fixedly covered on an inner wall of a bed surface of the bed body, and the other is fixedly covered on an inner wall of a bed bottom of the bed body; and an inflation and deflation valve (8) is mounted on a bedside (3) of the bed body.
With regard to claim 2, insofar as claim 2 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses the high-stability wire-drawing enhanced air mattress according to claim 1, wherein the two fixed layers are closely combined and formed with all the wire drawings (6) through an integrated textile process, all the wire drawings (6) are divided into a plurality of groups, and the drawing wires (6) in the same group are arranged in a zigzag shape (page 9, lines 9-13 and page 11, lines 43-50 of the provided translation).
Note that the claimed phrase “integrated textile process” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the apparatus can be made by an integrated textile process. 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 Zhong et al. is silent as to the process used to form the apparatus, it appears that the product of Zhong et al. would be the same or similar as the apparatus claimed.
With regard to claim 4, insofar as claim 4 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses the high-stability wire-drawing enhanced air mattress according to claim 1, wherein each of the partition layers (9, 10) is annular and inclined, the partition layers (9, 10) are provided with vent holes (102) in the length direction and width direction, and the auxiliary inflatable chambers (200, 300) are communicated with the main inflatable chamber (100) through the vent holes (102).
With regard to claim 5, insofar as claim 5 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses the high-stability wire-drawing enhanced air mattress according to claim 1, wherein two side enclosures (Fig.’s 2-7 and 12-19) are provided at each of the corners of the top and bottom edges of the bed body, and the two side enclosures at the same corner are fixed to each other through hot-melt connection and are enclosed together with the corresponding partition layers (9, 10) to form the corresponding auxiliary inflatable chambers (200, 300).
Note that the claimed phrase “hot-melt connection” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the blade apparatus can be made by hot-melt connection. 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 Zhong et al. is silent as to the process used to form the apparatus, it appears that the product of Zhong et al. would be the same or similar as the apparatus claimed.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al.
With regard to claim 3, insofar as claim 3 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein both the bed surface and bed bottom of the bed body are made of PVC glue, the fixing layers are made of polyester yarn woven fabric, the wire drawings are polyester threads, and the bed surface and bed bottom of the bed body are bonded to the two fixed layers one by one.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that having both the bed surface and bed bottom of the bed body are made of PVC glue, the fixing layers are made of polyester yarn woven fabric, the wire drawings are polyester threads, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this discloses the material used and it appears that the apparatus of Zhong et al. would perform equally well with the materials as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of Zhong et al. by utilizing the materials as claimed for the purpose of defining appropriate materials for production.
Note that the claimed phrases “the bed surface and bed bottom of the bed body are bonded to the two fixed layers one by one” are being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, that the apparatus can be made by bonding to the two fixed layers one by one. 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 Zhong et al. is silent as to the process used to form the apparatus, it appears that the product of Zhong et al. would be the same or similar as the apparatus claimed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. in view of USPAP 2004/0031103 (Wyatt et al. hereinafter).
With regard to claim 6, insofar as claim 6 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein a bed cover is sleeved outside the bed body, a top surface of the bed cover is mesh-shaped and forms a mesh layer, and a closure zipper is provided at the side opening of the bed cover.
Wyatt et al. discloses an inflatable bed (14) wherein a bed cover (38, 42) is sleeved outside the bed body (54), a top surface (42) of the bed cover is mesh-shaped (paragraph [0030]) and forms a mesh layer, and a closure zipper (46) is provided at the side opening of the bed cover.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. in view of Wyatt et al. and in further view of USPAP 2024/0374044 (Everett hereinafter).
With regard to claim 7, insofar as claim 7 is definite, the Zhong et al. modification with regard to claim 6 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein a side bag is provided on the side of the bed cover relative to the position of the inflation and deflation valve, a protruding portion of the inflation and deflation valve is located in the side bag, the bottom edge of the side bag is connected to the bed cover, and an inflation and deflation zipper in the shape of “凵” is provided at the side opening of the side bag.
Everett teaches an inflatable (106) wherein the inflation/deflation valve (132) is covered by a side bag (124) such that the valve is accessible through a zipper (134) opening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus of the Zhong et al. modification with regard to claim 6 by providing a side bag provided on the side of the bed cover relative to the position of the inflation and deflation valve, a protruding portion of the inflation and deflation valve is located in the side bag, the bottom edge of the side bag is connected to the bed cover, and an inflation and deflation zipper as taught in Everett for the purposes of obscuring the opening to the valve (paragraph [0040]).
With regard to claim 8, insofar as claim 8 is definite, the Zhong et al. modification with regard to claim 7 discloses the high-stability wire-drawing enhanced air mattress according to claim 7, wherein an inflatable shell (71) is mounted on the side of the bed body, the inflatable shell (71) is located in the side bag, and a one-way valve (78) is elastically capped at an inlet hole at the bottom of the inflatable shell (71).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. in view of CN 204784890 (Deng hereinafter).
With regard to claim 9, insofar as claim 9 is definite, Zhong et al. discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the inflation and deflation valve comprises a valve body, an umbrella valve, a deflation plug, and an inflation plug; the valve body is fixedly mounted on the bed body, the deflation plug is movably inserted into a deflation hole of the valve body, and the inflation plug is movably inserted into an inflation hole of the deflation plug; a plurality of air inlets are provided at the bottom of the inflation hole, and the umbrella valve is inserted into the deflation plug and its sealing plate is movably capped on all the air inlets. Zhong et al. does not disclose details about the inflation and deflation valve.
Deng teaches an inflatable product having an inflation and deflation valve wherein the inflation and deflation valve comprises a valve body (1), an umbrella valve (9, 91, 92), a deflation plug (2), and an inflation plug (8); the valve body (1) is fixedly mounted on the bed body, the deflation plug (2) is movably inserted into a deflation hole of the valve body (1), and the inflation plug (8) is movably inserted into an inflation hole of the deflation plug (2); a plurality of air inlets (5) are provided at the bottom of the inflation hole, and the umbrella valve (9, 91, 92) is inserted into the deflation plug (2) and its sealing plate (91) is movably capped on all the air inlets (5).
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 Zhong et al. by providing that the inflation and deflation valve comprises a valve body, an umbrella valve, a deflation plug, and an inflation plug; the valve body is fixedly mounted on the bed body, the deflation plug is movably inserted into a deflation hole of the valve body, and the inflation plug is movably inserted into an inflation hole of the deflation plug; a plurality of air inlets are provided at the bottom of the inflation hole, and the umbrella valve is inserted into the deflation plug and its sealing plate is movably capped on all the air inlets as taught in Deng for the purposes of defining the components of the inflation and deflation valve, and how it works.
With regard to claim 10, insofar as claim 10 is definite, the Zhong et al. modification with regard to claim 9 discloses the high-stability wire-drawing enhanced air mattress according to claim 9, wherein the valve body (1), the deflation plug (2) and the inflation plug (8) are connected through a connecting belt (Fig. 5); the valve body (1), the connecting belt and the inflation plug (8) are integrally formed, and the connecting belt is sleeved on the deflation plug (2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP’s 12,357,101, 9,254,047, 8,656,539 and 6,199,235 as well as USPAP’s 2025/0089903, 2004/0255379, 2025/0107637, 2025/0101765, 2024/0298813, 2024/0016303, 2023/0320491, 2023/0220921, 2022/0282734, 2022/0125213, 2020/0400150, 2020/0375143, 2020/0205579, 2020/0056711, 2018/0328504, 2014/0137331, 2013/0145560, 2010/0247356, 2007/0074760, 2005/0079077, 2004/0074004, 2003/0188388, 2001/0023512, 2004/0045086, 2018/0360228 and 2020/0323355 disclose inflatable articles and/or valves similar to that claimed.
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