DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 61-63, 65-67 and 104-126 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,901,186.
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. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement 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 patented claims. See MPEP 2144.04.
The limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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. 10,165,868.
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. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement 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 patented claims. See MPEP 2144.04.
The limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement 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 limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 61-67 and 104-126 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 116-130 of copending Application No. 18/532,903.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the 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 with the exception of the copending claims not having strands that are V-shaped. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement 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 limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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 copending claims meets the product-by-process limitations because it has the structure that is implied.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 61-63, 66, 67 and 104-126 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 104-125 of copending Application No. 19/318,931.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the 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 with the exception of the copending claims not having strands that are V-shaped. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement 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 limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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 copending claims meets the product-by-process limitations because it has the structure that is implied.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 61, 62, 66, 67 and 104-126 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 104-124 of copending Application No. 19/318,988.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the 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 with the exception of the copending claims not having strands that are V-shaped. However, as no criticality has been established, the recited strand shape and arrangement 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 limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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 copending claims meets the product-by-process limitations because it has the structure that is implied.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 61-67 and 104-126 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 also 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”). 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 62-67 and 104-126 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because they depend from and require all of the limitations of claim 61.
Claims 118 and 121 are indefinite because each recites “upper and lower weld strips” followed by recitations of “the upper weld strip”. Claims 119 and 122, which respectively depend from claim 118 and claim 121, are similarly indefinite because each recites “the lower weld strip”. As multiple “upper weld strips” and “lower weld strips” are recited in claims 118 and 121, it is unclear to which of the “upper weld strips” and “lower weld strips” the recited “the upper weld strip” and “the lower weld strip” refer. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims recitations of “the upper weld strip” and “the lower weld strip” are interpreted as referring to any given upper weld strip and any given lower weld strip. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 61-63, 66, 67, 104-123, 125, and 126 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Pennel (US Pat. No. 3,683,431).
Regarding claims 61, 108, and 115, 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 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 of the “end-to-end V-shaped strands” are respectively fixed to the upper and lower strips (Figs. 2, 8, 13, 14).
As no actual welded joints or operations are claimed, the recitation of the strips in the tensioning structure being “weld strips” is effectively a statement of intended use. The strips in Pennel’s tensioning structure, which may be gummed or rubberized fabric (col. 3, ln. 16-20), qualify as “weld strips” because they are capable of being used in a welding operation.
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 one of the strips of the “second pair of weld strips” and either of the lower strips may be considered the other strip of the “second pair of weld strips”.
As noted above, the claims do not actually require that any welding has taken place. Therefore, all of the strips, any of which may be used in a welding operation, qualify as “weld strips”.
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 claims 66 and 67, as discussed by Pennel and shown in Figures 2-4, Pennel’s tension structure is made by 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). As noted above, the Pennel’s strips meet the requirement of being “weld strips” because they are capable of being used in a welding operation.
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).
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.
Claim 124 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pennel, as applied above, and further in view of Thomas (US Pat. No. 7,070,845). Claims 61-63, 66, 67, 104-126 are also rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pennel and further in view of Thomas.
Regarding claims 61-63, 66, 67, and 104-126, as discussed above, Pennel teaches a structure that is considered herein to anticipate the requirements of claims 61-63, 66, 67, 104-123, 125, and 126.
To the extent that Pennel’s structure is considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach using welding or welding strips to in his tensioning structure, it is noted that Pennel does disclose that the strips used for holding the strand between the first and second sheets may be made from a fabric (col. 2, ln. 54-55). Thomas further teaches an inflatable structure comprising strands extending between two fibrous layers, which correspond in position to the recited "weld strips", that adjoin outer layers and that include fusible fibers within them that are responsible for fusing the fibrous layers directly (and the tensioning strands they support) to the outer layers via a heat-treating process, such as welding (Abstract, col. 3, ln. 45-49, col. 6, ln. 18-24; col. 7, ln. 5-10). Thomas's approach is advantageous over other types of joining, such as joining with an adhesive, because it eliminates a manufacturing step and the additional cost of applying an adhesive layer (col. 6, ln. 14-17). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include fusible fibers in the strips of Pennel’s product instead of an adhesive (e.g. gum or rubber) and to weld the strips to the sheets via the fusible fibers in the strips because the method is effective in forming connections between layers, including fibrous layers, within inflatable structures, and in order to reduce the amount of materials required for manufacture, increase the efficiency of the manufacturing process, and decrease the cost of the prior art product.
As shown in Figure 2, the strips (6, 12, 7, 11) that hold the strand (11) to the upper and lower sheets of the disclosed inflatable product are secured to their respective sheets in a linear path, which, as just discussed, would have been obvious to produce with a wielding operation. As noted above, discussed by Pennel, and shown in Figures 2-4, Pennel’s tension structure is made by 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). Although the cited prior art do not explicitly teach replacing the upper and lower strips in Pennel’s structure with the fusible material strips of Thomas in such a welding operation, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to achieve the benefits (e.g. the simple automation of Pennel and the material reduction and enhanced efficiency of Thomas) taught by each of the references and because doing so would be the simplest way of combining the teachings of the respective references in order to produce the combined product that is discussed above.
To the extent that the teachings of Pennel are considered to differ from the current invention in that his strand only has the appearance of a series of V-shapes when viewed from the side, it is noted that as no criticality has been established, the requirement that the strands are V-shaped, i.e. which is affected by both the placement of the strand and the thickness of the strips (note: thinner strips would achieve strand windings that are more V-shaped from various perspectives), rather than parallel or some other shape is a prima facie obvious selection of shape or dimension that does not define the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore, as no criticality for the second pair of weld strips (e.g. strips 6 and 7) that extend parallel to and necessarily provide at least some reinforcement to the strips that may be considered the upper and lower “weld strips” has been established, the decision to use strips that are sufficiently thin that they may be considered strand-shaped, which would result in further V-shaped bends to the tensioning strand, is a prima facie obvious selection of size or shape that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, the prior art renders obvious “at least one reinforcement strand disposed along a longitudinal extent of at least one of the upper and lower weld strips”.
The limitations related to the production of the claimed product 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.
Claim 64 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pennel and, optionally, Thomas, as applied to claims 61 and 63 above, and further in view of Crowell (US Pat. No. 1,276,731).
Regarding claim 64, the teachings of Pennel differ from the current invention in that he does not teach a reinforcement strand comprising twisted filaments. However, as discussed above, Pennel does teach that the strips used to in his tensioning structure may comprise a gummed or rubberized fabric (col. 3, ln. 16-20). Crowell further teaches that it is desirable to use threads that are more-closely twisted and, therefore, stronger, in gummed fabric strips (p. 1, ln. 88-96). Crowell teaches that a satisfactory fabric for this purpose may be produced by weaving with firmly twisted warp and filling threads (i.e. “filaments”) and that such a fabric achieves enhanced strength and value as compared to ordinary commercial fabrics (p. 1, ln. 96-108). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize fabrics made from firmly twisted threads in one or more of the strips of Pennel’s tensioning structure, including in a strip corresponding to the recited “at least one reinforcement strand” in order to achieve enhanced strength and value and because Crowell teaches that such fabrics are effective and useful in composite materials, such as gummed fabric strips. Accordingly, the reinforcement strip or strand of Pennel and Crowell comprises a plurality of twisted filaments.
Claim 65 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pennel and, optionally, Thomas, 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.
Conclusion
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