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 .
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)(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) 13, 15, 16, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (US Patent No 3,919,027).
Referring to claim 13: Jones teaches an inflatable structure comprising an inflatable tubular stiffening member having a shape of revolution about a central axis, the inflatable tubular stiffening member being made from an airtight film (item 13), edges of which on two opposite sides are joined using axial sealing means (items 17 and 18) such that a tube is formed when the airtight film is folded up on itself and the axial sealing means are assembled (figure 3), the tube being open at two axial ends thereof, wherein the inflatable tubular stiffening member comprises circumferential sealing means (item 20) arranged such that an outer air chamber of annular cross-section is formed when the tube is turned back on itself and when the two axial ends of the tube are assembled using the circumferential sealing means (col 2, lines 50-57, figure 5).
Referring to claim 15: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Additionally, Jones teaches wherein the outer air chamber surrounds an inner space which is open at at least one axial end (figure 1).
Referring to claim 16: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Jones teaches wherein the inner space is adapted to receive a support member (item 12).
Referring to claim 21: Jones teaches a method of assembling an inflatable structure comprising an inflatable tubular stiffening member, having a shape of revolution about a central axis and comprising circumferential sealing means, comprising: a step of making a tube made from an airtight film, the tube being formed when the airtight film is folded up on itself and edges of the film are assembled using axial sealing means (figure 3, items 17 and 18), the tube being open at two axial ends; and a step of making an outer air chamber of annular cross-section which is formed when the tube is turned back on itself and when the two axial ends of the tube are assembled using the circumferential sealing means (figure 5, item 20).
Referring to claim 22: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Jones teaches wherein at least one support member (item 12) and/or electrical device is placed inside an inner space which is open at at least one axial end, the inner space being delimited by the outer air chamber.
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) 14, 17, 20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones.
Referring to claim 14: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Jones does not specifically teach wherein the airtight film is transparent. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is known in the art to create inflatable structures using transparent films in order to allow for visibility through the structure.
Referring to claim 17: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the inner space is adapted to receive an electrical device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the inner space taught by Jones that is commonly occupied by a person could also accommodate an electrical device as in the instance of an emergency beacon commonly found on inflatable life rafts.
Referring to claim 20: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Jones does not specifically teach wherein the airtight film is a polyurethane-based film or a polyurethane-coated fabric. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the airtight film is a polyurethane-based film or a polyurethane-coated fabric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Referring to claim 24: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Jones does not specifically teach wherein the airtight film is a polyurethane-based film or a polyurethane-coated fabric. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the airtight film is a polyurethane-based film or a polyurethane-coated fabric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) Additionally, Jones does not teach the assembly of the sealing means is carried out by HF welding. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that HF welding would be a well known acceptable substitution for adhesive strips in order to fuse the two portions together in an airtight seam.
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Smith (US Patent No 5,101,823).
Referring to claim 18: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. Jones does not teach wherein the outer air chamber surrounds an inner space which is closed airtightly in such a way as to form an inner air chamber. However, Smith teaches wherein the outer air chamber surrounds an inner space which is closed airtightly in such a way as to form an inner air chamber (item 12, figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Jones with the inner air chamber taught by Smith in order to provide a cushioned bottom or aid in buoyancy.
Referring to claim 19: Jones and Smith teach all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the outer air chamber and the inner air chamber are inflatable independently. However, Smith teaches an inflation valve for different elements of a structure (items 14 and 119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place inflation valves on the inner and outer chambers of Jones as demonstrated by Smith in order to compartmentalize the two chambers to prevent deflation of both if one is punctured.
Referring to claim 23: Jones teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as noted above. Jones does not teach wherein the inner space is closed airtightly in such a way as to form an inner air chamber. However, Smith teaches wherein the inner space is closed airtightly in such a way as to form an inner air chamber (item 12, figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device using the method taught by Jones with the inner air chamber taught by Smith in order to provide a cushioned bottom or aid in buoyancy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
