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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 18/937,311 for an INFLATABLE SEATING APPARATUS, filed on 11/5/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berenson et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,486,083).
Regarding claim 1, Berenson teaches a seating apparatus comprising: an inflatable seat-back comprising a rear surface (41), the seat-back having a first area having a first width and a second area having a second width, wherein the second width is wider than the first width; an inflatable seat-bottom interconnected to the seat-back; an inflatable arm-rest assembly comprising a first arm-rest, a second arm-rest, and a cross-member; wherein the first arm-rest is configured to extend forward of the seat-back on a first side of the seat-back and the second arm-rest is configured to extend forward of the seat-back on a second side of the seat-back; wherein the first area of the seat-back extends between a first interior side of the first arm-rest and a second interior side of the second arm-rest; and wherein the second area of the seat-back extends under and partially supports a first portion of the first arm-rest and a second portion of the second arm-rest.
[AltContent: textbox (Inflatable seat back)]
PNG
media_image1.png
472
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st width of 1st area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cross member )]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st arm rest)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st interior side of 1st arm rest)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd interior side of 2nd arm rest)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd portion of 2nd arm rest)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd arm rest)]
[AltContent: textbox (Inflatable seat bottom)]
PNG
media_image2.png
372
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Hinge area allows for rotation )][AltContent: textbox (2nd width of 2nd area)]
Regarding claim 2, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the seat-back is adapted to rotate relative to the cross-member (Fig. 2, via hinge area as shown in in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rear surface of the seat-back is hingedly interconnected with the arm-rest assembly (Fig. 2, via hinge area as shown in in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the arm-rest assembly comprises a substantially planar upper surface and a substantially planar lower surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first arm-rest, second arm-rest, and cross-member are co-planar.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenson et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,486,083) in view of Cerdas (U.S. Pub. 2015/0197323).
Regarding claim 6, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach a magnetic connection apparatus interconnected to a top surface of the first arm rest or the second arm rest. Cerdas teaches an inflatable device with a magnetic connection apparatus interconnected to a top surface for attaching a tethering material thereto [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectations of success, to construct the apparatus of Berenson with a magnetic connection apparatus interconnected to a top surface of the first arm rest or the second arm rest in order to removably and quickly attach various members to the apparatus to prevent loss if the apparatus were to overturn, in view of Cerdas.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenson et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,486,083) in view of Hjerpe et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0307118).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the arm rest assembly comprises a plurality of inflatable chambers or wherein the seat back, the seat bottom, and the arm rest assembly comprise drop-stitch construction. Hjerpe teaches an inflatable structure comprising a plurality of inflatable chambers and drop-stitch construction in order to hold the air chamber firmly in shape allowing the structure to maintain its stability under heavy outside pressure and impact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the arm rest assembly of Berenson, comprising a plurality of inflatable chambers or wherein the seat back, the seat bottom, and the arm rest assembly comprise drop-stitch construction in order to allow for easy folding and compact transportation and storage, in view of Hjerpe.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berenson et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,486,083).
Regarding claim 9, Berenson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the seat back, the seat bottom, and the arm rest assembly are adapted to inflate to at least about 10 PSI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to construct the seat back, the seat bottom, and the arm rest assembly of Berenson, adapted to inflate to at least about 10 PSI in order to provide an apparatus of sufficient firmness to hold a wide range of weight, and further, because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 12458148, 9924801, 9676305, 9144318, 7571965, 7331,074 (inflatable seating apparatus).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 January 24, 2026