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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-39 and 62) and Species Group 1 with Species 1B, in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 6, 8-14, 17-18, 24-25, 33, 38 and 40-61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/10/2026.
Note: Claims 6, 8-14, 17-18, 24-25, 33 and 38 have additionally been constructively withdrawn by the Examiner as being directed to the following non-elected Species:
Claim 6 is directed to Species 2A (strands unequally spaced)
Claims 8-9 are directed to Species 3A (spacing between retention strips is equal). Claim 9 depends on claim 8.
Claim 10 is directed to Species 3B (greater spacing between first retention strips)
Claim 11 is directed to Species 3C (greater spacing between second retention strips)
Claim 12 is directed to Species 4A (strands have equal lengths)
Claim 13 is directed to Species 4B (strands have unequal lengths)
Claim 14 is directed to Species 4B (strands have unequal lengths)
Claim 17 is directed to Species 5A (number of first and second retention strips are equal)
Claim 18 is directed to Species 5B (number of first and second retention strips are unequal)
Claim 24 is directed to Species 6A-F and 7A-P (specific material compositions of strips and walls)
Claim 25 is directed to Species 8A-F (tensioning strands composition)
Claim 33 is directed to Species 4A (strands have equal lengths)
Claim 38 is directed to Species 4B (strands have unequal lengths).
Status of the Application
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 15-16, 19-23, 26-32, 34-37, 39, and 62 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 2/26/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 15-16, 19-21, 23, 26-32, 34-35, 37, 39, and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0230671 to Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches: An inflatable product (see Abstract and Fig. 3, air mattress 10), comprising:
a first wall (see Fig. 1, upper sheet 1) and a second wall (see Fig. 1, lower sheet 2) arranged opposite the first wall (see Fig. 1-3), the first wall and the second wall defining an air chamber after the inflatable product is inflated (see Abstract: “desired geometric arrangement when the inflatable product is pressured”), the first wall and a second wall extending along a first direction and a second direction being spaced apart from one another and disposed in a substantially parallel orientation (see Fig. 3-4, upper and lower sheets 1, 2, are spaced apart and extend parallel to one another);
a plurality of tensioning strands (see Fig. 1, strands 32) generally extending as a whole in a direction substantially parallel to the first wall and to the second wall (see Fig. 3 as shown, adjacent sets of strands 32, e.g. general tensioning structure 3, occur in regular intervals across and parallel to the first and second wall);
a plurality of first retention strips (see Fig. 1-3, upper weld strips 31) intersecting the plurality of tensioning strands and affixing the plurality of tensioning strands to the first wall (see Fig. 1-2, upper strips 31 connect strands 32 to upper wall 1); and
a plurality of second retention strips (see Fig. 1-3, lower weld strips 31) intersecting the plurality of tensioning strands and fixing the plurality of tensioning strands to the second wall (see Fig. 1-3, lower weld strips 31 connect strands 32 to lower wall 2).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of tensioning strands are clamped and affixed between the first retention strips and the first wall; and the plurality of tensioning strands are clamped and affixed between the second retention strip and the second wall (see Fig. 1-2, on both top and bottom examples of the strips 31, the strands 32 are “clamped” between edges 40/42 of strips 31).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips and the plurality of second retention strips are arranged alternately to affix the plurality of tensioning strands to the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 1-4, strips 31 are arranged alternately from an opposing perspective and affixed to upper and lower walls 1,2).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein individual strands of the plurality of tensioning strands are arranged in a parallel manner with respect to one another (see Fig. 1-2, individual strands 32 are arranged parallel as shown, see also para [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips comprise multiple pairs of first retention strips (see Fig. 3-4, pairs of first retention strips 31 may be considered adjacent strips 31 on upper wall 1), the plurality of second retention strips comprise multiple pairs of second retention strips (see Fig. 3-4, pairs of second retention strips 31 may be considered pairs of adjacent strips on lower wall 2), and the multiple pairs of first retention strips and the multiple pairs of second retention strips are arranged alternately to affix the plurality of tensioning strands to the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 3-4, as shown defined pairs of strips 31 extend across the walls).
Regarding claim 15, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips are transverse to the plurality of tensioning strands (see Fig. 1-4, upper strips 31 are transverse to strands 32), and the plurality of second retention strips are transverse to the plurality of tensioning strands (See Fig. 1-4, lower strips 31 are transverse to strands 32).
Regarding claim 16, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips are arranged parallel to each other (see Fig. 3-4, as shown, adjacent upper strips 31 are arranged parallel), and the plurality of second retention strips are arranged parallel to each other (see Fig. 3-4, as shown, adjacent lower strips 31 are arranged parallel).
Regarding claim 19, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein at least one of the plurality of tensioning strands is in contact with the plurality of first retention strips and the plurality of second retention strips (see Fig. 1-2, all strands 32 are in contact and affixed to strands 31).
Regarding claim 20, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the tensioning strands have a linear mass density of 532 Denier (see para [0078]: “threads have a density range from 0.01 to 0.3 grams per meter and preferably 0.085 grams per meter.” [1 Denier = 1 gram per 9,000 meters of fiber] so 532/9000 = ~0.059 grams per meter which falls within the range disclosed by Lin).
Regarding claim 21, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein a linear mass density for the tensioning strands is in the range of: 177 Denier to 1595 Denier; 319 Denier to 1329 Denier; and 532 Denier to 1063 Denier (see para [0078]: “threads have a density range from 0.01 to 0.3 grams per meter and preferably 0.085 grams per meter.” [1 Denier = 1 gram per 9,000 meters of fiber] thus Lin teaches a range from 90 Denier to 2,700 Denier and preferably 765 Denier, the claimed ranges fall within the ranges taught by Lin).
Regarding claim 23, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein a spacing between individual strands of the tensioning strands spacing may be within a range of: 0.5 mm to 20 mm; 1 mm to 10 mm; 2 mm to 8 mm; or 3 mm to 6 mm (see para [0076]: “According to the preferred embodiment, there is about 2.8 millimeters between strands (i.e., 3.6 strands per centimeter” thus falling within the claimed range with other ranges disclosed by Lin).
Regarding claim 26, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein: a length aspect ratio of the plurality of tensioning strands may be:
within a range from 0.4 to 30;
within a range from 1.0 to 20;
within a range from 1.5 to 16; or
approximately 1.8;
and wherein the length aspect ratio is defined as a ratio of: a length of a first segment of the plurality tensioning strands arranged between one of two adjacent first retention strips of the plurality of first retention strips and a second retention strip of the plurality of second retention strips; and a length of a second segment of the plurality of tensioning strands arranged between the two first retention strips (see Fig. 3-4, given the length of all strands between first and second retention strips are shown as equal lengths, than a 1.0 claimed ratio would be achieved).
Regarding claim 27, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips are fixedly arranged on the first wall through high-frequency welding, and the plurality of second retention strips are fixedly arranged on the second wall through high-frequency welding (see para [0065]: “The upper and lower weld strips 31 are in turn welded to the upper material 1 and the lower material 2, respectively.” See also para [0087]: welder may be a thermofusion device or high-frequency welder”).
Regarding claim 28, Lin teaches: An inflatable product (see Abstract and Fig. 3, air mattress 10), comprising:
a first wall (see Fig. 1, upper sheet 1) and a second wall (see Fig. 1, lower sheet 2) arranged opposite the first wall (see Fig. 1-3), the first wall and the second wall defining an air chamber after the inflatable product is inflated (see Abstract: “desired geometric arrangement when the inflatable product is pressured”), the air chamber defining a first direction parallel to the first wall and a second direction non-parallel to the first wall (see Fig. 3-4, “first direction/parallel being defined as running along the plane of sheet 1 in either horizontal direction, non-parallel/second direction being defined as running in a vertical [up/down] direction perpendicular to the plane extending by sheet 1);
a plurality of tensioning strands (see Fig. 1-4, strands 32) generally extending as a whole in the first direction (see Fig. 3 as shown, adjacent sets of strands 32, e.g. general tensioning structure 3, occur in regular intervals across a parallel direction with respect to the first and second wall);
a plurality of first retention strips (see Fig. 1-3, upper weld strips 31) intersecting the plurality of tensioning strands and affixing the plurality of tensioning strands to the first wall (see Fig. 1-2, upper strips 31 connect strands 32 to upper wall 1); and
a plurality of second retention strips (see Fig. 1-3, lower weld strips 31) intersecting the plurality of tensioning strands and fixing the plurality of tensioning strands to the second wall (see Fig. 1-3, lower weld strips 31 connect strands 32 to lower wall 2);
wherein: the plurality of first retention strips and the plurality of second retention strips span the overall width of the plurality of tensioning strands (see Fig. 1-4, first and second strips 31 span the width and extend of strands 32 extending across a width or length direction of the air mattress 10).
Regarding claim 29, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips comprise multiple pairs of first retention strips (see Fig. 3-4, pairs of first retention strips 31 may be considered adjacent strips 31 on upper wall 1), the plurality of second retention strips comprise multiple pairs of second retention strips (see Fig. 3-4, pairs of second retention strips 31 may be considered pairs of adjacent strips on lower wall 2), and the multiple pairs of first retention strips and the multiple pairs of second retention strips are arranged alternately to clamp the plurality of tensioning strands to the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 1-2, on both top and bottom examples of the strips 31, the strands 32 are “clamped” between edges 40/42 of strips 31).
Regarding claim 30, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 29, and additionally teaches: wherein when the inflatable product is in an inflated state, a strand segment of one of the plurality of tensioning strands between the first wall and the second wall is perpendicular to the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 3-4 as shown).
Regarding claim 31, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 29, and additionally teaches: wherein when the inflatable product is in the inflated state, a strand segment of one of the plurality of tensioning strands between the first wall and the second wall forms an angle with the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 3-4, and angle of approximately 90 degrees [strands 32 are perpendicular to the upper/lower sheets] is formed).
Regarding claim 32, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein the plurality of first retention strips and the plurality of second retention strips are arranged alternately to fix the plurality of tensioning strands to the first wall and the second wall (see Fig. 1-4, strips 31 are arranged alternately from an opposing perspective and affixed to upper and lower walls 1,2).
Regarding claim 34, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein the tensioning strands have a linear mass density of 532 Denier (see para [0078]: “threads have a density range from 0.01 to 0.3 grams per meter and preferably 0.085 grams per meter.” [1 Denier = 1 gram per 9,000 meters of fiber] so 532/9000 = ~0.059 grams per meter which falls within the range disclosed by Lin).
Regarding claim 35, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein a linear mass density for the tensioning strands is in the range of: 177 Denier to 1595 Denier; 319 Denier to 1329 Denier; and 532 Denier to 1063 Denier (see para [0078]: “threads have a density range from 0.01 to 0.3 grams per meter and preferably 0.085 grams per meter.” [1 Denier = 1 gram per 9,000 meters of fiber] thus Lin teaches a range from 90 Denier to 2,700 Denier and preferably 765 Denier, the claimed ranges fall within the ranges taught by Lin).
Regarding claim 37, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein a spacing between individual strands of the tensioning strands spacing may be within a range of: 0.5 mm to 20 mm; 1 mm to 10 mm; 2 mm to 8 mm; or 3 mm to 6 mm (see para [0076]: “According to the preferred embodiment, there is about 2.8 millimeters between strands (i.e., 3.6 strands per centimeter” thus falling within the claimed range with other ranges disclosed by Lin).
Regarding claim 39, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein: a length aspect ratio of the plurality of tensioning strands may be:
within a range from 0.4 to 30;
within a range from 1.0 to 20;
within a range from 1.5 to 16; or
approximately 1.8;
and wherein the length aspect ratio is defined as a ratio of: a length of a first segment of the plurality tensioning strands arranged between one of two adjacent first retention strips of the plurality of first retention strips and a second retention strip of the plurality of second retention strips; and a length of a second segment of the plurality of tensioning strands arranged between the two first retention strips (see Fig. 3-4, given the length of all strands between first and second retention strips are shown as equal lengths, than a 1.0 claimed ratio would be achieved).
Regarding claim 62, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 28, and additionally teaches: wherein: a pair of first retention strips is alternatively arranged to a pair of second retention strips to define, along the plurality of tensioning strands, consecutive segments of tensioning strands (see Fig. 3-4, upper and lower weld strips 31 are considered a pair); and the pair of first retention strips clamp the ends of each segment of the consecutive segments to the top wall or to the bottom wall (see Fig. 1-2, on both top and bottom examples of the strips 31, the strands 32 are “clamped” between edges 40/42 of strips 31 and affixed to upper and lower sheets 1,2).
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.
Claim(s) 22 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0230671 to Lin.
Regarding claims 22 and 36, Lin teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 28, respectively, however Lin does not explicitly teach: wherein a linear mass density for a first strand of the plurality of tensioning strands differs from a linear mass density of a second strand of the plurality of tensioning strands.
Lin, however teaches a variety of materials could be used to form the tensioning strands (see para [0076 and 0078]: “Strands 32 may be made of regular cotton, polyester, nylon thread made of multiple filaments twisted together, of the type typically used in clothing seams, or any other strand types” and “it is appreciated that other materials could be used, such as monofilament lines, metal wires or cables, plastic and the like.” It is understood that varying the choice of materials utilized for the strand would inherently affect the linear mass density of the strand itself.
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have (without undue experimentation) varied the Denier or linear mass density between different strands utilized across the device of Lin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show inflatable chamber devices (e.g. mattresses) with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Justin 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights