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 Species I, Figs. 1-4B, claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20 in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7, 10, 13, 17-18 are withdrawn.
Remarks
This communication is in response to Application No. 19/097,968 filed on 04/02/2025.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2025 and 05/21/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 04/02/2025 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112
No claim elements in this application are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 3, the use of the word “partially” when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree. Further, “partially welded” is indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes a “partial” weld thus the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-16, 19-20 are rejected via dependency.
For the purpose of examination the following interpretation is used: “
In claim 5, “the first sheet” and “the second sheet” lack antecedent basis.
Claims 6, 8-9 and 20 are rejected via dependency.
NOTE: any prior art rejection provided below is made as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues above.
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.
(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) 1-4, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4 891 855, hereinafter D1 (cited by applicant).
PNG
media_image1.png
919
1544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
878
1504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1.
D1 discloses an inflatable product (entire document) comprising:
a first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6);
a second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6);
an inflatable chamber (see annotated figure 5) defined by the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6) and the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6); and
a sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) disposed in the inflatable chamber (see annotated figure 5), the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) comprising:
a plurality of first segments (see annotated figure 5 and corresponding portions in fig. 6) spaced apart from each other and welded (layers are bonded per col. 1, ln. 58+; note that the claimed phrase “welded” is being treated as a product by process limitation. 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) to the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6);
a plurality of second segments (see annotated figure 5) spaced apart from each other and welded (layers are bonded per col. 1, ln. 58+; note that the claimed phrase “welded” is being treated as a product by process limitation. 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) to the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6); and
a plurality of tensioning segments (see annotated figure 5) extending between and connecting (as in fig. 5) a plurality of pairs of corresponding first segments (see annotated figure 5) and second segments (see annotated figure 5), wherein the plurality of first segments (see annotated figure 5) and the plurality of second segments (see annotated figure 5) are respectively welded (layers are bonded per col. 1, ln. 58+; note that the claimed phrase “welded” is being treated as a product by process limitation. 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) to the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6) and the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6) in an alternating manner and define a corrugated cross-section (as in figs. 7-8) of the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6), and wherein each first segment (see annotated figure 5) is partially welded to the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6).
As to claim 2.
D1 discloses wherein the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) is in the form of a continuous sheet of material (as in figs. 1-4) extending lengthwise from a first longitudinal end of the inflatable product to a second longitudinal end of the inflatable product (as in figs. 1-2), wherein the continuous sheet includes, in order along at least a portion of the continuous length, a repeating series of one of the first segments (see annotated figure 5), one of the tensioning segments (see annotated figure 5), one of the second segment (see annotated figure 5), and one of the tensioning segments (see annotated figure 5), wherein the continuous sheet of material defines the corrugated cross-section (2M and 12M appear ‘corrugated’ as in figs. 5-6).
As to claim 3.
D1 discloses wherein each second segment (see annotated figure 5) is partially welded (layers are bonded per col. 1, ln. 58+; note that the claimed phrase “welded” is being treated as a product by process limitation. 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) to the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6), wherein each first segment (see annotated figure 5) is welded to the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6) along a first welding region (see annotated figure 5 and 6) of the first segment, and each second segment (see annotated figure 5) is welded (layers are bonded per col. 1, ln. 58+; note that the claimed phrase “welded” is being treated as a product by process limitation. 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) to the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6) along a second welding region (see annotated figure 5 and 6) of the second segment (see annotated figure 5 and 6).
As to claim 4.
D1 discloses the first welding region (see annotated figures 5-6 showing circled regions) comprises at least one first welding seam (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the upper joint 4 between 1 and 2 in fig. 5 ) and the second welding region (see annotated figures 5-6 showing circled regions) comprises at least one second welding seam (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the lower joint 15 between 3 and 2 in fig. 5 ).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 19-20, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
As to claim 5.
D1 discloses wherein the first sheet and the second sheet define a length of the inflatable product in a length direction (L) and a width of the inflatable product in a width direction (W); wherein the plurality of first segments (see annotated figure 5) are disposed at intervals along the length (L) of the inflatable product (10), and the plurality of second segments (see annotated figure 5) are disposed at intervals along the length direction (L); wherein the first welding region (see annotated figures 5-6 showing circled regions) comprises two linear first welding seams (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the upper joint 4 between 1 and 2 in fig. 5) respectively located on opposite sides of the first segment (see annotated figure 5) in the length direction (L), and the second welding region (see annotated figures 5-6 showing circled regions) comprises two linear second welding seams (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the lower joint 15 between 3 and 2 in fig. 5 ) respectively located on opposite sides of the second segment (see annotated figure 5) in the length direction (L).
D1 does not disclose two linear first welding seams or two linear second welding seams.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the device with the claimed two linear first welding seams or two linear second welding seams solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the welds provide connection. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed two linear first welding seams or two linear second welding seams, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
As to claim 6.
D1 does not disclose wherein a first distance (NW 1) between the two first welding seams (122) of each first segment (see annotated figure 5) is approximately equal to a second distance (NW2) between two adjacent first welding seams (122) respectively on two adjacent first segments (see annotated figure 5), and wherein a third distance (NW3) between the two second welding seams (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the lower joint 15 between 3 and 2 in fig. 5 ) of each second segment (see annotated figure 5) is approximately equal to a fourth distance (NW4) between two adjacent second welding seams (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the lower joint 15 between 3 and 2 in fig. 5 ) respectively on two adjacent second segments (see annotated figure 5).
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the device with a first distance (NW 1) between the two first welding seams (122) of each first segment (see annotated figure 5) is approximately equal to a second distance (NW2) between two adjacent first welding seams solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the welds provide connection. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed a first distance (NW 1) between the two first welding seams (122) of each first segment (see annotated figure 5) is approximately equal to a second distance (NW2) between two adjacent first welding seams, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
As to claim 8.
D1 does not disclose wherein a width (LW 1) of the first welding seam (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the upper joint 4 between 1 and 2 in fig. 5 ) is 0.5% to 25% of a width (Si) of the first segment (see annotated figure 5) in the length direction (L) of the inflatable mattress (10); and the width (LW2) of the second welding seam (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the lower joint 15 between 3 and 2 in fig. 5 ) is 0.5% to 25% of the width (S2) of the second segment (see annotated figure 5) in the length direction (L) of the inflatable mattress (10).
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having a width (LW 1) of the first welding seam is 0.5% to 25% of a width (Si) of the first segment (see annotated figure 5) in the length direction (L) of the inflatable mattress (10); and the width (LW2) of the second welding seam is 0.5% to 25% of the width (S2) of the second segment in the length direction (L) of the inflatable mattress solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed a width (LW 1) of the first welding seam is 0.5% to 25% of a width (Si) of the first segment (see annotated figure 5) in the length direction (L) of the inflatable mattress (10); and the width (LW2) of the second welding seam is 0.5% to 25% of the width (S2) of the second segment in the length direction (L) of the inflatable mattress, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
As to claim 9.
D1 discloses the first welding seam (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the upper joint 4 between 1 and 2 in fig. 5 ) is linear (fig. 5 appears linear) or wave-shaped and the second welding seam (e.g. figs. 5-6 where a “seam” is the lower joint 15 between 3 and 2 in fig. 5 ) is linear (fig. 5 appears linear) or wave-shaped.
As to claim 11.
D1 does not disclose wherein the tensioning segment (see annotated figure 5) and the first segment (see annotated figure 5) connected thereto enclose a first angle (a), and the first angle (a) is an acute angle and the tensioning segment (see annotated figure 5) and the second segment (see annotated figure 5) connected thereto enclose a second angle (3), and the second angle (3) is an acute angle when the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6) and the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6) overlap each other in an inflated state of the inflatable product (see annotated figure 5).
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed limitations solves any stated problem or are for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed limitations, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
As to claim 12.
D1 does not disclose the first angle (a) is greater than or equal to 70° and less than 90° and the second angle (3) is greater than or equal to 70° and less than 90°.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed limitations solves any stated problem or are for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed limitations, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
As to claim 19.
D1 does not disclose the inflatable product is in an inflated state, a length of the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) in its corrugated shape along a length direction (L) of the inflatable product is 80%-100% of a length of the inflatable product (10) along the length direction (L), and a width along a width direction (W) of the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) is 50%-100% of a width along the width direction (W) of the inflatable product (10).
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed limitations solves any stated problem or are for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed limitations, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
As to claim 20.
D1 does not disclose wherein the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) is made of a non-woven fabric, the weight per unit area of the non-woven fabric, the first distance (NW1), the second distance (NW2), the third distance (NW3) and the fourth distance (NW4) satisfy at least one of the following options: a) the ratio of the weight per unit area of the non-woven fabric to the first distance (NW1) is in a range of 5 g/m2/cm to 20 g/m2/cm; b) the ratio of the weight per unit area of the non-woven fabric to the second distance (NW2) is in a range of 5 g/m2/cm to 20 g/m2/cm; c) the ratio of the weight per unit area of the non-woven fabric to the third distance (NW3) is in a range of 5 g/m2/cm to 20 g/m2/cm; and d) the ratio of the weight per unit area of the non-woven fabric to the fourth distance (NW4) is in a range of 5 g/m2/cm to 20 g/m2/cm.
At the top of MPEP 2144.04, it explains that various modifications, including changes in size and proportion, are “common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients.” Specifically, §§IV. A cites, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed limitations solves any stated problem or are for any particular purpose. Further, there is no readily apparent significance or advantage to this limitation. Thus, a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of D1 to have the claimed limitations, because this modification does not patentably distinguish the claimed device, nor cause the device to perform differently, and thus the modification of the dimensions would have been obvious.
Such a modification would be well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of mere design choice.
Claim(s) 14-16, as best understood in view of the issues above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of CN 220477308 U, hereinafter D2 (cited by applicant).
PNG
media_image3.png
1551
1506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14.
D1 does not disclose wherein at least one of the first wall (upper layer 1 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding upper layer 11 in e.g. fig. 6) and the second wall (lower layer 3 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding lower layer 13 in e.g. fig. 6) includes an outer layer facing away from the inflatable chamber (see annotated figure 5) and an inner layer facing the inflatable chamber (see annotated figure 5), wherein the outer layer is a fabric layer, and wherein the inner layer is a polymer material layer.
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. D2 is in a related field and teaches forming inflatable cushions using multiple layers (see annotated fig. 5A) and suggests doing so to provide improved performance of the inflatable pad.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 to modify D1 to have an outer layer (see annotated figure 5 referring to 108) facing away from an inflatable chamber (106 in fig. 4C) and an inner layer (110) facing the inflatable chamber (see figure 4C), wherein the outer layer is a fabric layer (see annotated figure 5A), and wherein the inner layer is a polymer material layer (see annotated figure 5A) for the purpose of providing improved air cushion features. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
As to claim 15. See explanation for claim 14.
As to claim 16.
D1 does not disclose wherein at least one side of the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) is plated with a metal.
An invention is obvious where some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. D2 is in a related field and teaches forming inflatable cushions using multiple layers (see annotated fig. 5A) and suggests doing so to provide improved performance of the inflatable pad.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of D2 to modify D1 to have at least one side of the sheet-like tensioning member (middle layer 2 in e.g. fig. 5 and corresponding middle layer 12 in e.g. fig. 6) is plated with a metal (see annotated figure 5A referring to metal plating layer 125) for the purpose of providing improved air cushion features. An invention created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as each further discloses a state of the art.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or pointed out by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. T. Newton, Esq. whose telephone number is (313)446-4899. The examiner can normally be reached 0700-1500 M-F.
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, SPE 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.
/J. T. Newton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673 11 September 2026
* * * * *
Prosecution Insights