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 3-5, 11, 12, 14-15, and 18-19 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 3 recites the limitation "the substantially flat top wall" in line 2 and “the substantially flat bottom wall” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent from Claim 1 which does not recite a substantially flat top wall/bottom wall. It appears that Claim 3 should be dependent from Claim 2 and therefore will be interpreted as such.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the substantially flat top wall" in line 3 and “the substantially flat bottom wall” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is dependent from Claim 9 which does not recite a substantially flat top wall/bottom wall. It appears that Claim 11 should be dependent from Claim 10 and therefore will be interpreted as such.
Claim 14 and 15 recites the limitation "the closure element" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” should be replaced with --a--.
Claim 17 recites “optionally”, such limitation makes it unclear whether the recitation afterwards is being positively recited or not. In order to proceed, the Office will interpret the claim such that it is not required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the lightweight denier material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to proceed, “the” should be replaced with --a--.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,246,212. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,246,212
Difference
20. An exercise assembly comprising: a core bladder having a sealed body supporting a valve that permits fluid communication with a fluid-receiving cavity of the sealed body for selective arrangement of the sealed body in one of a compact deflated state or an expanded inflated state; an outer case formed by a plurality of panels defining a core bladder receiving cavity that contains the core bladder; and wherein the outer case includes a first opening that cooperates with a closure element that provides selective access to the core bladder receiving cavity and a second opening that is sized for permitting access to the valve; wherein the plurality of panels that form the outer case includes: a top panel that is configured to include a dome-shape when the core bladder is arranged in the expanded inflated state; a bottom panel that is configured to include a bowl-shape when the core bladder is arranged in the expanded inflated state; and an intermediate ring-shaped panel connecting the dome-shaped panel to the bowl- shaped panel, wherein the intermediate ring-shaped panel defines the first opening that provides selective access to the core bladder receiving cavity, wherein one of the dome-shaped panel and the bowl-shaped panel defines the second opening that is sized for permitting access to the valve; wherein one or both of the top panel and the lower panel includes a frictional, slip-resistant portion; and wherein the frictional, slip-resistant portion further includes a silicon gel pattern arranged over the lightweight denier material.
1. 1. An exercise assembly comprising: a core bladder having a sealed body supporting a valve that permits fluid communication with a fluid-receiving cavity of the sealed body for selective arrangement of the sealed body in one of a compact deflated state or an expanded inflated state; an outer case formed by a plurality of panels defining a core bladder receiving cavity that contains the core bladder; and wherein the outer case includes a first opening that cooperates with a closure element that provides selective access to the core bladder receiving cavity and a second opening that is sized for permitting access to the valve; wherein the plurality of panels that form the outer case includes a top panel that is configured to include a dome-shape when the core bladder is arranged in the expanded inflated state; a bottom panel that is configured to include a bowl-shape when the core bladder is arranged in the expanded inflated state; and an intermediate ring-shaped panel connecting the dome-shaped panel to the bowl-shaped panel, wherein the intermediate ring-shaped panel defines the first opening that provides selective access to the core bladder receiving cavity, wherein one of the dome-shaped panel and the bowl-shaped panel defines the second opening that is sized for permitting access to the valve; and wherein one or both of the top panel and the lower panel includes a frictional, slip-resistant portion, wherein the frictional, slip-resistant portion further includes a silicon gel pattern arranged over a lightweight denier material.
Subject matters identical
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blazar et al (US 9114118 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Blazar et al teaches a core bladder 200 comprising: a body 220 defining a fluid-receiving cavity (Refer to Figs. 4&5 Col 7-8 Lines 52-67:” The inner core 200 of FIG. 2 may comprise a fluid impermeable cover 220 with resilient filling material therein forming a matrix or other such structure capable of containing a fluid (see FIGS. 4 and 5 for example, showing cross-sections of the pillow embodiment of FIG. 1). While pillow(s) might be designed to operate with many different fluids (including various liquids or gases), typically the fluid in the embodiment of FIG. 4 might be air.”) ; a skeletal load-support matrix 210 within the fluid-receiving cavity 200 (Refer to Figs.4&5 Col 8 Lines 8-11:” The resilient material within the inner core of FIG. 4 typically comprises resilient open cell foam 210 (with the open cell nature of the foam forming the matrix/structure for retaining air).”); and a valve 350 supported by the body, wherein the valve is configured to permit fluid communication with the fluid-receiving cavity to selectively arrange the body in one of a compact deflated state and an expanded inflated state (Refer to Figs. 2-3 & Col 7 Lines 62-65:” . The use of air as the fluid for inflation of the pillow may allow for simpler use, since the fluid conduit and valve may simply interact with the external air atmosphere during deflation and/or self-inflation of the inner core 200.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the body 220 is configured to include: a dome portion having a curved sidewall 40 and a substantially flat top wall (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
321
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bowl portion having a curved sidewall 40 and a substantially flat bottom wall (Refer to Fig.5); and wherein a lower edge of the curved sidewall of the dome portion is connected to an upper edge of the curved sidewall of the bowl portion (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the skeletal load-support matrix 210 includes a plurality of rib members extending between an inner surface of the substantially flat top wall and an inner surface of the substantially flat bottom wall (Refer to FIGS 4&5).
Regarding Claim 4, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the plurality of rib members include: a first rib member; a second rib member; and at least one intermediate rib member arranged between the first rib member and the second rib member (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
294
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein a length of one or both of the substantially flat top wall or the substantially flat bottom wall extends at least between the first rib member and the second rib member, wherein a width of one or both of the substantially flat top wall and the substantially flat bottom wall extends at least between a first sidewall of each rib member and a second sidewall of each rib member (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the lower edge of the curved sidewall of the dome portion defines a perimeter of the dome portion, wherein the upper edge of the curved sidewall of the bowl portion defines a perimeter of the bowl portion, wherein the perimeter of each of the dome portion and the bowl portion defines a substantially elliptical shape (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
321
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Blazar et al teaches exercise assembly (The Office takes the position that the limitation of “exercise assembly” is intended use such that the device of Blazar et al is capable of being used for exercising if desired since it meets all the limitations of the claimed invention) comprising: a core bladder 200 having a sealed body 220 supporting a valve 350 that permits fluid communication with a fluid-receiving cavity of the sealed body for selective arrangement of the sealed body in one of a compact deflated state or an expanded inflated state (Refer to Figs. 2-3 & Col 7 Lines 62-65:” . The use of air as the fluid for inflation of the pillow may allow for simpler use, since the fluid conduit and valve may simply interact with the external air atmosphere during deflation and/or self-inflation of the inner core 200.”); an outer case 10 formed by a plurality of panels 20,30,40 defining a core bladder receiving cavity that contains the core bladder 200 (Refer to Figs. 4&5); and wherein the outer case 10 includes a first opening that cooperates with a closure element that provides selective access to the core bladder receiving cavity (Refer to Fig. 9 to see the zipper closure element) and a second opening 110 that is sized for permitting access to the valve 350 (Refer to Fig. 2-3 Col 7 Lines 27-51:” And in some embodiments, the opening to the pocket 110 might include an affixing element such as hook-and-loop material, a snap, or a button”).
Regarding Claim 9, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the core bladder 200 includes a skeletal load- support matrix 210 disposed within the fluid-receiving cavity (Refer to Figs.4&5 Col 8 Lines 8-11:” The resilient material within the inner core of FIG. 4 typically comprises resilient open cell foam 210 (with the open cell nature of the foam forming the matrix/structure for retaining air).”).
Regarding Claim 10, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the body 220 is configured to include: a dome portion having a curved sidewall 40 and a substantially flat top wall (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
321
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bowl portion having a curved sidewall 40 and a substantially flat bottom wall (Refer to Fig.5); and wherein a lower edge of the curved sidewall of the dome portion is connected to an upper edge of the curved sidewall of the bowl portion (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding Claim 11, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the skeletal load-support matrix 210 includes a plurality of rib members extending between an inner surface of the substantially flat top wall and an inner surface of the substantially flat bottom wall (Refer to FIGS 4&5).
Regarding Claim 12, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the plurality of rib members include: a first rib member; a second rib member; and at least one intermediate rib member arranged between the first rib member and the second rib member (Refer to annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
294
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the plurality of panels that form the outer case includes: a top panel 20 that is configured to include a dome-shape when the core bladder is arranged in the expanded inflated state; a bottom panel 30 that is configured to include a bowl-shape when the core bladder is arranged in the expanded inflated state; and an intermediate ring-shaped panel 40 connecting the dome-shaped panel 20 to the bowl- shaped panel 30, wherein the intermediate ring-shaped panel defines the first opening that provides selective access to the core bladder receiving cavity (Refer to Fig. 9), wherein one of the dome-shaped panel and the bowl-shaped panel defines the second opening 110,120 that is sized for permitting access to the valve 350 (Refer to Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the closure element is attached to the intermediate panel 40 and extends over the first opening (Refer to Fig. 9 Col 4 Lines 3-5:” FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary pillow, with an enlarged image of a zippered opening.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the closure element includes a zipper including a body of material supporting cooperating teeth that are selectively joined by a slider (Refer to Fig. 9 Col 4 Lines 3-5:” FIG. 9 illustrates an exemplary pillow, with an enlarged image of a zippered opening.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein one or both of the top panel and the lower panel includes a frictional, slip-resistant portion (Refer to Col 6 Lines 62-65:” So for example, the outer casing 100 might be formed of a knit material such as 100% polyester knit (or in other embodiments, a polyester-cotton blend knit, typically primarily polyester), for example if the comfort material is foam. Alternatively, the outer casing 100 might be formed of a woven material such as 100% cotton woven for in other embodiments, a polyester-cotton blend, typically primarily cotton), for example if the comfort material is loose fill (such as fiber fill, hair, or down for example).”..The Office takes the position that the knit material provides some level of slip-resistance).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Blazar et al continues to teach wherein the frictional, slip-resistant portion includes a textured pattern optionally formed by a lightweight denier material having a urethane coating; wherein the lightweight denier material includes ripstop nylon, wherein the urethane coating includes polyurethane or thermoplastic polyurethane (Refer to Col 6 Lines 62-65:” So for example, the outer casing 100 might be formed of a knit material such as 100% polyester knit (or in other embodiments, a polyester-cotton blend knit, typically primarily polyester), for example if the comfort material is foam. Alternatively, the outer casing 100 might be formed of a woven material such as 100% cotton woven for in other embodiments, a polyester-cotton blend, typically primarily cotton), for example if the comfort material is loose fill (such as fiber fill, hair, or down for example).”..The Office takes the position that the knit material has a pattern and that the urethan coating is not required thus Claim 19 is optional).
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.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazar et al (US 9314118 B2) in view of BUTT et al (US 20170259126 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Blazar et al teaches the claimed invention as noted above wherein the body is formed of a polyurethane sheet having a thickness (Refer to Blazar et al Col 8 lines 1-7:” Typically, the thickness of the film of the impermeable cover 220 might be at least sufficient to functionally work to durably seal the core, but the thickness typically may not exceed the amount that might impact the feel of the inner core. For example, in the embodiment of FIG. 4, the polyurethane film typically might have a thickness of about 3-7 mils (for example about 5 mils in the embodiment of FIG. 2).”) but fails to teach said thickness is of about 0.5 to about 2 mm. Butt et al teaches an inflatable device comprising a body formed of a polyurethane sheet having a thickness of about 0.5 to about 2 mm (Refer to Paragraph [0031] The soccer ball making cover sheet is a composite multilayer sheet as shown in FIG. 1 to FIG. 3. FIG. reference 101 describes a composite multilayer sheet for making panel cut-outs of a soccer ball which comprising of outer layer 102 which may be a layer of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Polyurethane (PU), or other like synthetic strong material…. In embodiments, outer material layer 102 may have a thickness of 0.03 to 2.0 mm”). Butt et al is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach inflatable bodies and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the body of Blazar et al to be in view of Butt et al such that it is has a thickness of 0.5-2mm since Butt et al teaches that such thickness are suitable for inflatable members.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazar et al (US 9314118 B2) in view of Pollock, Todd E (US 5050870 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Blazar et al teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein the top panel 20 includes a reinforcement ring circumscribing the second opening 110,120. Pollock teaches an inflatable member comprising an opening having a reinforcement ring 35 circumscribing the opening (Refer to Figs. 1&3 Col 5 Lines 39-46:” It is necessary that the cap member create a fluid tight seal upon nipple 30, and this may be accomplished by fine definition and good fit of the threads engaging the two elements, and may be aided by annular "O" ring 35, in the instance illustrated carried about the nipple at its intersection with the outer surface of the tubular membrane 25 in a position to engage the adjacent portion of the skirt of cap 33.”). Pollock is analogous with Applicants invention in that they both teach inflatable members comprising walls and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the opening 120 of Blazar et al such that the top panel 20 includes a reinforcement ring 35 circumscribing the second opening 120 for the purpose of strengthening the opening from tearing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attach list of references cited for prior arts pertinent to claimed and unclaimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Loan Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
