DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed April 9th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 104-123 remain pending in the application with claim 123 acknowledged as withdrawn alongside the response to the restriction.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of purported merits (e.g. “when pulled taut, the strands provide a high tensile strength…. At the same time, the plastic strips facilitate a strong, long-lasting weld between the tensioning structure and the inflatable product”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 107-122 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 107, the limitations “second”/”fourth”/”sixth”/”eighth portion” are recited (With , while previously “first parts of the strand” and “second parts of the strand are recited in claim 104. There is antecedent confusion as to whether such ‘portions’ are in fact also the ‘parts’ previously established in claim 104 or a new part altogether. For the purposes of examination, second and sixth portions are construed as ‘second parts’ or constituents thereof, and fourth and eighth portions are construed as ‘first parts’.
Regarding claims 111-113, and 115-117 the limitation “the strand extends outside the first {and/or second} perimeter” are recited. While previously the antecedent claim 107 has previously recited “a second portion positioned between the first side of the second weld strip and the second sheet and within the second perimeter of the second weld strip”, “a fourth portion positioned between the second side of the first weld strip and the first sheet and within the first perimeter of the first weld strip”, “a sixth portion positioned between the first side of the second weld strip and the second sheet and within the second perimeter of the second weld strip”, and “an eighth portion positioned between the second side of the first weld strip and the first sheet and within the first perimeter of the first weld strip” are recited. There is confusion and contradiction as to how the portions are both within the perimeters and outside of the perimeter’s simultaneously and may necessitate 112d related rejections as the subject matter would otherwise fail to include the features of the antecedent claims (claim 107). For the purposes of examination, the limitation “outside” in claims 111-113 and 115-117 are construed as “within” as was previously established in the antecedent claim 107.
Claims 108-110, 114, and 118-122 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as being dependent on an indefinite antecedent claim (claims 107 among 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.
(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) 104-105, 107, 115-117 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7070845); hereafter “Thomas”.
Regarding claim 104, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) an inflatable product, comprising: a first sheet; a second sheet; a plurality of spaced apart internal tensioning structures, each of the plurality of internal tensioning structures comprising: a first weld strip having a first side directly welded to the first sheet and a second side opposite the first side of the first weld strip; a second weld strip having a first side and a second side, the second side of the second weld strip welded directly to the second sheet, the second side of the second weld strip opposite the first side of the second weld strip; and a strand wound back and forth multiple times between the first weld strip and the second weld strip along a longitudinal direction of the first weld strip and the second weld strip, wherein first parts of the strand are fixed between the second side of the first weld strip and the first sheet and second parts of the strand are fixed between the first side of the second weld strip and the second sheet.
Regarding claim 105, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 104, wherein the first sheet is coupled to the second sheet independent of the plurality of spaced apart tensioning structures to form an inflatable interior of the inflatable product (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-5 with fastening additionally secured at at least 212, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 107, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 104, wherein the first weld strip has a first perimeter and the second weld strip has a second perimeter (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5) and the strand comprising a first portion extending from the first weld strip to the second weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), a second portion positioned between the first side of the second weld strip and the second sheet and within the second perimeter of the second weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), a third portion extending from the second weld strip back to the first weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), a fourth portion positioned between the second side of the first weld strip and the first sheet and within the first perimeter of the first weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), a fifth portion extending from the first weld strip back to the second weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), a sixth portion positioned between the first side of the second weld strip and the second sheet and within the second perimeter of the second weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), the sixth portion spaced apart from the second portion along a longitudinal extent of the second weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), a seventh portion extending from the second weld strip back to the first weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), an eighth portion positioned between the second side of the first weld strip and the first sheet and within the first perimeter of the first weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), the eighth portion spaced apart from the fourth portion along a longitudinal extent of the first weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), and a ninth portion extending from the first weld strip back to the second weld strip (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 115, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 107, wherein the first perimeter of the first weld strip has a first longitudinal side and a second longitudinal side, the second longitudinal side being opposite the first longitudinal side, and the strand extends {within} the first perimeter along the first longitudinal side of the first perimeter (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5) and {within} the first perimeter along the second longitudinal side of the first perimeter between the first portion of the strand to the ninth portion of the strand (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 116, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 115, wherein the strand extends {within} the first perimeter along the first longitudinal side of the first perimeter between the first portion of the strand and the ninth portion of the strand at multiple spaced apart instances (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 117, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 116, wherein the strand extends within the first perimeter along the second longitudinal side of the first perimeter between the first portion of the strand and the ninth portion of the strand at multiple spaced apart instances (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 106, 108-114, and 118-122 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Music (U.S. Pat. No. 5491854), alongside Juergen (German. Pat. Number: DE19953563A1), with Juergen used as a demonstrative teaching reference for claims 108-114 and 118-122.
Regarding claim 106, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 105, wherein {the first sheet is welded to the second sheet} (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5)
However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose wherein the first sheet is coupled to the second sheet through a band, the band being welded to the first sheet and the band being welded to the second sheet.
Regardless, Music teaches (claim 10, FIGS. 1-3) an inflatable product (title) wherein the first sheet is coupled to the second sheet through a band (28/30/32/34; FIG. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the bands of Music (FIGS. 1-3) into Thomas (FIGS. 2-5). Where the results would have been predictable as both Thomas and Music are concerned with inflatable products synonymous with applicant’s invention, and consideration is taken that a person of ordinary skill in the art of applicant’s invention would consider the general field of inflatable products for considerations. Where advantageously, it’s considered that employing an additional band such as Music would assist in assemblage of the two sheets as Music has considered “holding the covering 24 taut and smooth over the top of the inflatable mattress 20, and for holding down the inflatable mattress 20 and preventing the mattress periphery from bending upwardly” [4:15-22].
Regarding claim 108, Thomas discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 107. However, Thomas does not disclose wherein the third portion of the strand is angled relative to the first portion of the strand when the inflatable product is inflated.
Regardless, Music teaches (FIGS. 1-3) an inflatable product (title) wherein a portion of the strand is angled relative to the another portion of the strand when the inflatable product is inflated (as illustrated in FIGS. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the angular tensioning configurations demonstrated in Music (FIG. 1) analogously into the strand constructions of Thomas (FIGS. 2-5). ). Where the results would have been predictable as both Thomas and Music are concerned with inflatable products synonymous with applicant’s invention as being of general applicability, and consideration is taken that a person of ordinary skill in the art of applicant’s invention would contemplate the general field of inflatable products for considerations. Where advantageously, the use of angled tensioners would with “alternating ones of said tensioning means… oriented to apply tension forces at oppositely directed acute angles”, which would thus eminently and knowingly distribute the forces similar to applicant’s invention. Thereby reducing the total aligned tensile loading condition and improving the longevity of the apparatus and strands in Thomas. Where additionally it is considered that Juergen demonstrates (FIGS. 9 and 10) both the use of perpendicular and angled tethering means in inflatable products with their opposing sheets connected to each other via tensioning strands/tethers (As eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 9 and 10, and wherein the title clearly elucidates the use of threads/strands).
Regarding claim 109, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 108, wherein the fifth portion of the strand is parallel to the first portion of the strand when the inflatable product is inflated (as illustrated in FIGS. 3).
Regarding claim 110, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 109, wherein the third portion of the strand is parallel to the seventh portion of the strand when the inflatable product is inflated (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 111, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 110, wherein the first perimeter of the first weld strip has a first longitudinal side and a second longitudinal side (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), the second longitudinal side being opposite the first longitudinal side (As illustrated in FIGS. 2-5), and the strand extends {within} the first perimeter along the first longitudinal side of the first perimeter (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5) and {within} the first perimeter along the second longitudinal side of the first perimeter between the first portion of the strand to the ninth portion of the strand (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 112, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 111, wherein the strand extends {within} the first perimeter along the first longitudinal side of the first perimeter between the first portion of the strand and the ninth portion of the strand at multiple spaced apart instances (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 113, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 112, wherein the strand extends {within} the first perimeter along the second longitudinal side of the first perimeter between the first portion of the strand and the ninth portion of the strand at multiple spaced apart instances (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 114, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 113, wherein each of the plurality of internal tensioning structures further comprises a second strand having a first end proximate a first transverse side of the first perimeter and a second end proximate a second transverse side of the first perimeter (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5), the first transverse side being between the first longitudinal side of the first perimeter and the second longitudinal side of the first perimeter and the second transverse side being opposite the first transverse side (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 118, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 1-5; Music: FIGS. 1) the inflatable product of claim 113, wherein when the inflatable product is inflated (As illustrated in FIGS. 1-5) the third portion of the strand and the fifth portion of the strand have a V- shaped appearance when viewed from a first longitudinal side of the respective tensioning structure (Music: As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and as set forth previously in claim 108 alongside considerations to Juergen, FIGS. 9-10).
Regarding claim 119, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 113, wherein the second weld strip is parallel to the first weld strip when the inflatable product is inflated (As illustrated in FIGS. 3-5).
Regarding claim 120, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (FIGS. 2-5) the inflatable product of claim 113.
However, Thomas itself does not explicitly disclose wherein the inflatable product is an air mattress (particularly for sleeping upon).
Regardless, Music teaches an inflatable air mattress that employs tensioning structures (as illustrated in FIGS. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (of inflatable articles) to have considered utilizing the tensioning structures of Thomas in the inflatable product of Music by applying a known technique (the strand based tensioning devices of Thomas) into the inflatable mattress of Music. Where the results would have been predictable as both Thomas and music are inflatable products that utilize some tensioning structure. Where it is considered that internalizing the tensioning structure would render Music easier to assembly and enable Thomas to continue supporting a person’s weight thereon, and where Thomas acknowledges “Bladder 200 gains a variety of advantages over prior art bladders. For example, the overall weight and stiffness (resistance to bending) of bladder 200 are reduced; material costs will decrease because a lesser quantity of fusing material is required; a more consistent bladder may be produced as a manufacturing step is eliminated; and process efficiency will increase due to the removal of the manufacturing step.” [8:5-12].
Regarding claim 121, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 1-5, Music: FIGS. 1-3) the inflatable product of claim 120, wherein the first sheet is an upper sheet and the second sheet is a lower sheet (As illustrated in Thomas: FIGS. 2-1-5, and Music: FIGS. 1-3).
Regarding claim 122, Thomas in view of Music and Juergen discloses (Thomas: FIGS. 1-5, Music: FIGS. 1-3) the inflatable product of claim 121, wherein the upper sheet is coupled to the lower sheet independent of the plurality of spaced apart internal tensioning structures (As illustrated in Thomas: FIGS. 2-1-5, and Music: FIGS. 1-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) were considered pertinent because they address the state of the art of inflatable mattresses, bladders, cushions and constructions thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights