DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statements
Information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed January 12, 2026, February 11, 2026, February 27, 2026, and April 7, 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The IDSs have been placed in the application file, but the lined-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on April 14, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat. Nos. 9,901,186 and 10,165,868, and Application Nos. 18/532903, 19/318931, and 19/318988 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded and the corresponding double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Claims 61-63, 66, 67 and 104-126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,165,869. Claims 127 and 128 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of 10,165,869.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims of the copending application recite a product that is either explicitly claimed to have or inherently possesses each of feature of the instant claims referenced above with the exception of the patented claims not having strands that are V-shaped or reciting weld strip dimensions. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement and weld strip dimensions are prima facie obvious selections of shape or size (i.e. of the strands and/or weld strips) that do not distinguish the instant claims over those of the copending application. See MPEP 2144.04.
The requirements that various components of the claimed product are welded are product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. The product of the patented claims meets the product-by-process limitations because it has the structure that is implied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his 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 128 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 128 recites a ratio of a thickness to a width of the upper weld strip, which does not appear to be supported by the instant disclosure because, although a range of thicknesses and a range of widths are taught (see, for example, paragraph 67 of the published application), there appears to be no disclosure of a ratio of the values. The claim to a ratio constitutes new matter because it can include any combination of thickness and width (e.g. thicknesses and widths that are on the scale of meters, centimeters, or nanometers), so long as the ratio of the values is in the claimed range, and, as such, far exceeds the scope of what has actually been taught. Appropriate correction or identification of where the instant disclosure provides explicit support for the new limitation is required.
Claims 61-63, 65, 67, and 104-128 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The meaning of claim 61 is unclear because it recites a “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands”. Although the instant disclosure depicts tensioning structures including a strand (532) that is zigzagged between strips of materials (31, 31’) such that it forms a series of V shapes that are generally arranged in an end-to-end manner (e.g. as shown in Figs. 25-28), each of such tensioning structures appears to only include a single strand, rather than a plurality of strands. The instant disclosure further teaches tensioning structures that clearly include a plurality of strands (e.g. as shown in Figs. 8 and 9), but these strands are not V-shaped and cannot be considered “end-to-end”). In contrasting the embodiment of Figures 25-28, which has V-shaped strands, with other embodiments, the instant disclosure states that strand 532 may be formed from a single strand wound back and forth rather than a from a plurality of separate strands (par. 103). This statement contributes to the ambiguity of the meaning of the claim limitation because it is not clear what structures are covered by how the embodiments “may be” formed. As such, the recitation of a “plurality” of V-shaped strands appears inconsistent with what is actually shown, and it is not clear what specifically is considered a “plurality” of strands in the context of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the claim to the V-shaped strands being “end-to-end”, without reciting what actually occurs at the respective “ends” does not convey a particular structure and, therefore, the structure required of “end-to-end” is unclear. For the sake of compact prosecution, a single strand that zigzags back and forth (e.g., between two weld strips) to form a series of V-shapes that are arranged in an end-to-end fashion is considered herein to qualify as a “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands”. Appropriate explanation and correction are required.
Claims 61-63, 65, 67, and 104-128 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because they depend from and require all of the limitations of claim 61.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed April 14, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 61-63, 66, 67, 104-128 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pennel (US Pat. No. 3,683,431) in view of Kelly (US Pat. No. 5,412,822) and/or Thisse (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0204406).
Regarding claims 61, 108, 115, 124, and 127, Pennel teaches an inflatable product comprising an upper first sheet (1), a lower second sheet (2) opposite and spaced apart from the first sheet by a gap, and a tensioning structure (4, 6, 7, 11, 11 a-c, 12, 13) spanning the gap between the first sheet and the second sheet (Figs. 2, 14; Abstract; col. 2, ln. 53-62). The tensioning structure comprises a set of upper strips (6, 12), which adjoin the first sheet, a set of lower strips (7, 13), which adjoin the second sheet, and one or more strands that are arranged between and affixed to the upper and lower strips (Fig. 2). As shown in Figures 8, 13, 14, etc., the strands are positioned such that they form a series of V-shapes arranged in an end-to-end manner (i.e. “end-to-end V-shaped strands”), wherein the upper and lower ends, or portions, of the “end-to-end V-shaped strands” are respectively fixed to the upper and lower strips (Figs. 2, 8, 13, 14). As shown in Figure 2, portions of the V-shaped strands are captured between the first sheet (1) and the upper, first surface of the upper weld strip (6) that faces the first sheet (1), and other portions of the V-shaped strands are captured between the second sheet (2) and the lower, first surface of the lower weld strip (7) facing the second sheet (Fig. 2).
The teachings of Pennel differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach using welding or welding strips to make his tensioning structure or disclose using a welding operation to connect the welding strips to the first and second sheets. However, Pennel does disclose that the strips (6, 7) used for holding the strand between the first and second sheets may be made from a rubberized or gummed fabric and that complementary bands (12, 13) of gum or rubber adhere the strips to the first and second sheets (col. 2, ln. 54-60), but does not disclose how the gum or rubber strips adhere the tensioning structure to the sheets. Kelly further teaches an inflatable article made from rubber-fabric or polymer-plastic components and discloses that such components can be heat-welded together (col. 3, ln. 45-48). Thisse further teaches an inflatable article and discloses that the process of constructing an article from rubberized or coated fabric usually requires radio frequency (RF) welding, which fuses materials together and can achieve joints that are as strong as the original work piece materials (par. 170). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the upper and lower strips of Pennel’s tensioning structures, which may include rubberized or coated fabric, respectively to the first and second sheets in Pennel’s inflatable product using heat welding or RF welding because Kelly discloses that heat welding is useful in connecting together components, including rubber-fabric components, of inflatable articles and Thisse discloses that RF welding is usually used for constructing inflatable articles, including inflatable articles made from rubberized or coated fabrics, and can achieve connections that are as strong as the original work piece materials. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach welding the strips to the their respective sheets in a linear path, including welding the upper weld strip to the first sheet in a linear path, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the welding operation in a linear path, thereby welding the upper weld strip to the first sheet in a linear path, because the prior art weld strips (6,12,7,13) are linear and connect to their respective first or second sheets (1, 2) along a linear path (Pennel, Fig. 2).
The limitations related to the production of the claimed product (i.e. the requirements that components are welded together) are product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the recited processing steps, but rather the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. The prior art product meets the product-by-process limitations because it has the structure that is implied.
Regarding claim 62, as noted above, Pennel’s tensioning structure includes two upper and two lower strips (i.e. “weld strips”) and, when viewed at the angles shown in Figures 8, 13, 14, etc., the strands extending between them have the appearance of a series of connected V-shapes. As shown in Figure 2 and discussed by Pennel, the upper and lower ends of strand, which forms the V-shapes (i.e. “V-shaped strands”), are respectively captured between the set of upper strips (6, 12) and the set of lower strips (7, 13) (Fig. 2; col. 2, ln. 53-62). Either of the upper strips may be considered the “third weld strip” and either of the lower strips may be considered the other strip of the “fourth weld strip”.
Regarding claim 63, as noted above, Pennel’s tensioning structure includes two upper and two lower strips (i.e. “weld strips”, 6, 12, 7, 13), which Figure 2 shows all extend in parallel (i.e. each of the strips of the pairs of upper strips and lower strips is “disposed along a longitudinal extent” of the other strip within a given upper or lower pair) (Fig. 2). As no actual structure is recited for the “reinforcement strands” and as Pennel teaches that the strips are made of fabric, which comprises strands, at least one of an upper strip or a lower strip provides at least some reinforcement to the rest of the structure and qualifies as a “reinforcement strand” positioned as claimed.
Regarding claim 67, as discussed by Pennel and shown in Figures 2-4, Pennel’s tensioning structure is made from a single, continuous strand (11) that makes up the plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands and continuous rolls of upper and lower strips (6 and 7, or 12 and 13, i.e. “weld strip materials”) of material (Figs. 2-4; col. 2, ln. 53-col. 3, ln. 52).
Regarding claims 104-107, 109-114, 116, and 117, as shown in Figures 8, 13, 14, etc., the end-to-end V-shaped strands (11) in Pennel’s tensioning structure each have a left “first portion” and right “second portion” that each extend between the upper and lower weld strips (unlabeled, but respectively located adjacent items 1 and 2) and are angled relative to the vertical direction when the product is inflated. Any V-shaped strand may be considered a “first V-shaped strand” and any other, all of which are spaced by at least some distance from the first, may be considered a “second V-shaped strand”. At least in the central portion of the structure shown in Figure 8, all of the left “first portions” of the V-shapes are substantially parallel to each other and all of the right “second portions” of the V-shapes are substantially parallel to each other (i.e. “the first portion of the first V-shaped strand is substantially parallel to the first portion of the second V-shaped strand” and the “second portion of the first V-shaped strand is substantially parallel to the second portion of the second V-shaped strand”) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 118-123, as discussed above, Pennel’s tensioning structure includes two upper strips, either of which may be considered “the upper weld strip”, and two lower strips, either of which may be considered “the lower weld strip”. For the purposes of claims 118-123, Pennel’s strip 6 is considered “the upper weld strip” and strip 7 is considered “the lower weld strip”. As noted above, the V-shaped strands all have a left “first portion” and a right “second portion”, each of which extend between the upper and lower strips.
As also noted, the looping structure in Figure 2 has the shape of a series of Vs arranged end-to-end when viewed from the angle shown in Figure 8 (Figs. 2, 8). As shown in Figure 2, upper portions (11a) of the strand (11), which forms the “end-to-end V-shaped strands”, extend above strip 6 and lower portions (11b) of the strand extend below strip 7 (Fig. 2). Therefore, if the leftmost loop corresponds to the recited “first V-shaped strand”, any of the other loops, including the loop next to the left-most loop, may be considered the “second V-shaped strand”. As shown in Figure 2, the first portion (i.e. the portion of the first loop of strand 11 in the foreground of the figure) of the first V-shaped strand crosses a perimeter (i.e. the perimeter defined by the lower surface of strip 6) of the upper weld strip (6) at a first location, the second portion (i.e. the portion of the first loop of strand 11 in the background) of the first V-shaped strand crosses the perimeter upper weld strip (6) at a second location that is spaced apart from the first location on the perimeter of the upper weld strip along its longitudinal length (Fig. 2). Similarly, the first portion (i.e. the portion of a second loop of strand 11 in the foreground of the figure) of a second V-shaped strand (i.e. a loop that is positioned to the right of the above-discussed first loop) crosses the perimeter of the upper weld strip (6) at a third location, the second portion (i.e. the portion of the second loop of strand 11 in the background) of the second V-shaped strand crosses the perimeter upper weld strip (6) at a fourth location that is spaced apart from the third location on the perimeter of the upper weld strip along its longitudinal length (Fig. 2). As also shown in Figure 2 and better visualized in Figure 8, a first distance along the perimeter from the second location to the third location is less than a second distance along the perimeter from the third location to the fourth location (Figs. 2, 8).
Similar to the relationship described above, but oriented with respect to the lower weld strip, the first portion (i.e. the portion of the first loop of strand 11 in the foreground of the figure) of the first V-shaped strand crosses a perimeter (i.e. the perimeter defined by the upper surface of strip 7) of the lower weld strip (7) at a fifth location, the second portion (i.e. the portion of the first loop of strand 11 in the background) of the first V-shaped strand crosses the perimeter lower weld strip (7) at a sixth location that is spaced apart from the fifth location on the perimeter of the lower weld strip along its longitudinal length (Fig. 2). As also shown in Figure 2 and better visualized in Figure 8, when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal length of the lower weld strip, a third distance between the first location on the perimeter of the upper weld strip and the second location on the perimeter of the upper weld strip is different from a fourth distance between the fifth location on the perimeter of the lower weld strip and the sixth location on the perimeter of the lower weld strip.
Regarding claims 125 and 126, for the sake of the current discussion, strip 7 is considered herein to correspond to the recited “lower weld strip”. As shown in Figure 2, the lower strip (7) has a thickness (i.e. “first portion”) and outer perimeter (i.e. corresponding the edges around the strip that extend between the upper and lower surfaces) that extends away from the second sheet (2) towards the upper weld strip (6) when the product is inflated (Fig. 2). As also shown, the outer perimeter has a front, first longitudinal side and back, second longitudinal side opposite and facing away from the first longitudinal side, and the strand (11) extends beyond the outer perimeter of the lower weld strip on each of its first and second longitudinal sides (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 128, the teachings of Pennel differ from the current invention in that a ratio of the upper weld strip’s thickness and width is not disclosed. However, Pennel does depict an upper weld strip (6) having a thickness-to-width ratio of about 0.15 (Fig. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the weld strips of Pennel’s product to have or to approximate the depicted proportions, including configuring the strips to have a thickness-to-width ratio of about 0.15, because Pennel depicts such proportions as being appropriate for his product. The claimed is obvious in view of the structure Pennel renders obvious because its upper limit overlaps or is very close to the proportions taught or rendered obvious by Pennel. See MPEP 2144.05. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate combination of thickness and width proportions, including configuring the strips to have a thickness-to-width ratio in the range of 0.0015 to 0.15, according to the physical/mechanical requirements of the inflatable product being made, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in Pennel’s art. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the recited thickness-to-width ratio is a prima facie obvious selection of dimension or shape that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 65 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pennel and Kelly and/or Thisse, as applied to claim 61 above, and further in view of Ma (US PG Pub. No. 2007/0200329).
Regarding claim 65, the teachings of Pennel differ from the current invention in that the strand forming the V-shaped strands in his inflatable product is not disclosed to comprise twisted filaments. However, Pennel does teach that the strand may be made from a thread-like element that is relatively elastic and that good results have been obtained with a 840 denier Nylon thread coated in plastics resin (col. 6, ln. 20-24). Ma further teaches using tethers to control the distance between the walls of an inflatable airbag, teaches using tethers have relatively more resiliency than the layers they attach, and exemplifies using 840 denier twisted nylon thread for such a purpose (par. 2, 3, 24, 26). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize 840 denier twisted nylon thread as the strand in Pennel’s tensioning structure because Pennel teaches that the thread should be relatively elastic and that good results were achieved with 840 denier nylon thread, and because Ma discloses that a 840 denier twisted nylon, i.e. which comprises twisted filaments, is an appropriate and useful tethering material, which functions similarly to Pennel’s tensioning strand, for inflatable products that demonstrates an appropriate relative resiliency to function as intended.
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Pennel and Thomas (US Pat. No. 7,070,845) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed April 14, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the current rejections.
Applicant has argued that the recitation of a “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands” is not indefinite, but instead broadly covers both continuous strands and multiple, discrete strands because the instant disclosure teaches that the strands can be made up of “at least one continuous strand” (published application, par. 19) and that it “may be formed from a single strand wound back and forth rather than a plurality of separate and discrete strands used as in tensioning structure 3” (par. 103). This is not a persuasive argument, however, because, as discussed above, the instant disclosure only actually depicts the “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands” being a single, continuous strands but uses the word “plurality”, which implies more than one V-shaped strand. The paragraph 19 teaching that at least one continuous strand can make up the V-shaped strands, if read plainly, implies that the strand(s) that form the “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands” extend continuously across the length of the tensioning structure, rather than being a series of discontinuous strands that are connected end-to-end. The paragraph 103 statement that the strand may be formed from a single strand wound back and forth rather than like the multi-stranded tensioning structure 3, while clearly contrasting the structure of Figures 25-28 with that of tensioning structure 3, muddles the matter further because it fails to make clear what structures are covered by how the embodiments “may be” formed. As such, the structure required by the recitation of a “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands” is not clear in view in view of the vague and contradictory information in the instant disclosure.
Applicant has also pointed to paragraph 63, which states that more strands than are shown may be affixed to the strips in the tensioning structure 3 of Figures 1 and 2 as evidence that the “plurality of end-to-end V-shaped strands” can include multiple strands. This is also not a persuasive argument because paragraph 63 discusses the structures of Figures 1 and 2, which have parallel strands, rather than a product including V-shaped strands.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Thomas are moot in view of the current rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights