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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 2c should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear what reference numeral 19 is pointing to in Fig. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 23 is 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 23 recites “an elastic strip” in line 3. An elastic strip is previously introduced in parent claim 15. Antecedence should be reflected or the claim terms clearly differentiated from each other.
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.
Claims 15-16, 19, 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katzenmeyer et al., US 2,591,829.
Regarding claims 15 and 24:
Katzenmeyer discloses an inflatable enclosure (tent) having an inflatable structure comprising:
at least one inflatable beam (28); and
a cover support by the inflatable structure (17, 18 and 19),
wherein the cover comprises a longitudinal dimension for fastening to a corresponding longitudinal dimension of the at least one inflatable beam (refer to Fig. 5), and
wherein an elastic strip (58 – rubber treated fabric), which runs along the longitudinal dimensions, is interposed between the cover and the at least one inflatable beam.
Regarding claims 16 and 25:
Katzenmeyer discloses wherein the elastic strip (58) is tensioned in a transverse direction (via fastener teeth 59) once the elastic strip has been sewn together with one of the ends the at least one inflatable beam or with the cover (32nd paragraph).
The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 19:
Katzenmeyer discloses wherein the cover and the at least one inflatable beam have removable assembly means (buckle 53).
Regarding claim 22:
Katzenmeyer discloses wherein the elastic strip is a woven elastic strip (rubber treated fabric).
Regarding claim 23:
Katzenmeyer discloses wherein the inflatable structure comprises two parallel arch-shaped beams (28, refer to Fig. 4) supporting the cover, and
wherein each arch-shaped beam is fastened to the cover by interposing the elastic strip therebetween.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzenmeyer et al., US 2,591,829 in view of Muller, US 2,765,014.
Regarding claim 17:
Katzenmeyer discloses an inflatable beam wherein a flexible exterior is connected to a flexible flap (56 and 57) at a first end thereof.
Katzenmeyer does not expressly disclose wherein the inflatable beam comprises a flexible casing enclosing an inflatable tube.
Muller discloses an inflatable beam comprising a flexible casing (1) enclosing an inflatable tube (3, refer to claim 1 specifying flexibility).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to substitute the inflatable beam structure of Muller for the beam structure of Katzenmeyer in order to reinforce and strengthen the beam structure.
Regarding claim 18:
Katzenmeyer modified in view of Muller discloses wherein the elastic strip (63) is assembled with the flexible flap (57) in a region that is close to a second end of the flexible flap and opposite the first end for fastening to the flexible casing (structure 28 in Katzenmeyer).
Claims 20-21 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzenmeyer et al., US 2,591,829 in view of Muller, US 2,765,014 as applied to claim 17, further in view of Ghebali, WO 89/03468.
Regarding claim 20 and 28:
Katzenmeyer does not expressly disclose wherein the cover and the flexible flap are connected by a zip fastener.
Ghebali discloses an inflatable enclosure wherein a cover (2) and a flap (13) are connected by a zip fastener (14 and 15).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide a zip fastener connection to the cover and flap of Katzenmeyer in order to provide replaceability and repairability.
Regarding claims 21 and 26:
Katzenmeyer discloses wherein the elastic strip is fastened in line with the flexible flap (57) but does not expressly disclose sewing a fold in the flap.
Ghebali discloses wherein a flap (13) includes a fold (refer to Fig. 2) sewn in place (translation)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to sew a fold in the flap of Katzenmeyer as suggested by Ghebali in order to reinforce the attachment part of the flap.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzenmeyer et al., US 2,591,829 in view of Keshavaraj et al., US 2003/0134066.
Regarding claim 27:
Katzenmeyer discloses wherein the elastic strip is sewn but does not disclose wherein the strip is sewn using a twin-needle sewing machine with fixed spacing.
Keshavaraj discloses using a twin-needle sewing machine with fixed spacing (the spacing is fixed unless adjusted) to sew an inflatable member (para. 0028 and 0030).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to sew the elastic strip of Katzenmeyer with a twin-needle sewing machine as suggested by Keshavaraj in order to strengthen the seam (para. 0028 and 0030 of Keshavaraj).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
