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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15-21, 23-25, and 27-29 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 22 is currently canceled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the peripheral portion 108 of the pressure dispersing layer 104 cannot describe the envelope because the peripheral portion 108 does not enclose the pressure dispersing layer 104. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the peripheral portion enclosing the pressure dispersing layer or peripheral portion 108 does not enclose the plurality of absorbent material layers 130) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The envelope identified by the Office Action fails to include the vapor-transfer surface. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The one or more fenestrations 129 cannot describe the first transfer channel and the second transfer channel because the one or more fenestrations are not components of the alleged envelope. From the claim language it is not clear whether the channels are enclosed within the bridge, or part of the bridge. Language clarifying would be helpful.
There is no motivation to combine Bishop, Coulthard, and Pratt. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, , it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel and a baffle to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient, and in order to control the flow of fluid (Pratt, paragraph 0032)..
Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt fail to teach "a baffle disposed in an interior portion of the evaporation channel."
The rejection of claim 6 and claim 7 over Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt fails. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office Action fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 21. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel formed by a cover coupled to the envelope similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032).
The applicant claims Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt fail to teach "a feedback path substantially parallel to the fluid transfer bridge" of claim 25. Pratt teaches a feedback path substantially parallel to the fluid transfer bridge (two-way arrows in figure 9).
Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt fail to teach "the feedback path comprises at least one side having a textured surface configured to maintain an open flow path under external pressure."
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 15-17, 19, 21-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2019133830 A1) in view of Coulthard (WO 2012142002 A1) in view of Pratt (USPGPUB 20130123722).
Regarding Claim 1, Bishop teaches an apparatus for managing fluid from a tissue site, the apparatus comprising- a fluid transfer bridge (104);
an envelope (108) enclosing the fluid transfer bridge (130)(figure 3A), the envelope comprising:-
a vapor-transfer surface (82), the fluid transfer bridge disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface (figure 3A),
a first transfer channel (one of the slits or openings 129), and
a second transfer channel (other one of the slits or openings 129); and
Bishop fails to teach wherein a vapor-transfer surface configured to egress vapor across the vapor-transfer surface in response to a humidity gradient across the vapor transfer surface, the fluid transfer bridge disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface and an evaporation channel disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface opposite the fluid transfer bridge.
Coulthard teaches an apparatus for managing fluid from a tissue site wherein a vapor-transfer surface configured to egress vapor across the vapor-transfer surface (162) in response to a humidity gradient across the vapor transfer surface, the fluid transfer bridge (158) disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface (figure 1) (paragraph [0023]) and an evaporation channel (118) disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface (162) opposite the fluid transfer bridge(158). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the envelope of Bishop in view of Pratt to include a vapor-transfer surface configured to egress vapor across the vapor-transfer surface in response to a humidity gradient across the vapor transfer surface, the fluid transfer bridge disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface similar to that disclosed by Bishop so that the fluid transfer rate may be completely self automated, and the rate may be controlled in the system (paragraph [0026]).
Bishop fails to teach wherein the an evaporation channel disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface opposite the fluid transfer bridge evaporation channel disposed along a baffle the baffle forming a tortuous path within the evaporation channel. Pratt teaches an evaporation channel (annotated Figure 5) disposed adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface opposite the fluid transfer bridge a baffle (124) disposed in an interior portion of the evaporation channel (annotated figure 5), the baffle forming a tortuous path within the evaporation channel (figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel and a baffle to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient, and in order to control the flow of fluid (Pratt, paragraph 0032).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop further teaches wherein the fluid transfer bridge comprises an absorbent (paragraph [0069-0070]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fluid transfer bridge (211) comprises: a first wicking layer having a distribution surface (wicking fabric, paragraph 0052) (paragraph 0037); a second wicking layer (several wicking layers, 0052) having an acquisition surface ; and an absorbent (212) having a first wicking layer and the second wicking layer (several wicking layers, 0052) (paragraph 0037) in contact with the distribution surface and the acquisition surface (paragraph 0037);.
While Bishop fails to explicitly disclose the absorbent is disposed between the first and second wicking layer, Bishop discloses several wicking layers (paragraph 0052) and an absorbent layer that can be considered a wicking layer (paragraph (0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wicking layers to disclosed by Bishop to include an absorbent layer disposed between the first and second layer disclosed by Bishop in order lock the liquid away or wick the liquid toward the cover layer as disclosed by Bishop in paragraph 0037.
Regarding Claim 7, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fluid transfer bridge (211) comprises: an absorbent (212); and a wicking layer (paragraph 0037) having an acquisition surface (wicking layer, paragraph 0037) in contact with the absorbent (212) and a distribution surface adjacent to the vapor-transfer surface (filter, 214) (figure 2b).
While Bishop fails to explicitly disclose the absorbent in contact with the acquisition surface, Bishop discloses several wicking layers (paragraph 0052) and an absorbent layer that can be considered a wicking layer (paragraph (0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wicking layers to disclosed by Bishop to include an absorbent layer in contact with the acquisition surface disclosed by Bishop in order lock the liquid away or wick the liquid toward the cover layer as disclosed by Bishop in paragraph 0037.
Regarding Claim 15, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach an evaporation manifold disposed in the evaporation channel. However, Pratt teaches an evaporation manifold (open cell foam, paragraph 0032) disposed in the evaporation channel (144) (figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation manifold similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 16, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach an evaporation channel having a textured surface. However, Pratt teaches wherein the evaporation channel (144) comprises at least one side having a textured surface (open cell foam, paragraph 0032) configured to maintain an open flow path under external pressure (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel with a textured surface similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 19, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel comprises recessed channels. Pratt teaches wherein the evaporation channel (144) comprises recessed channels (open cell foam, paragraph 0032) configured to maintain an open flow path under external pressure (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel with recess channels similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 21, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel is formed by a cover couples to the envelope. Pratt teaches wherein the evaporation channel (144) is formed at least in part by a cover (directing member, 124) coupled to the envelope (dressing, 102) over the vapor-transfer surface (sleeve member, 110) (figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel formed by a cover coupled to the envelope similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 23, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel is formed by a cover coupled to an envelope. Pratt teaches wherein the evaporation channel (144) is formed at least in part by a cover (110) having edges coupled to the envelope (146 and 148) along a length of the vapor-transfer surface (124) (figure 9) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel formed by a cover similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032), and so that the envelope may keep everything in place (Pratt, paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 24, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel is formed by a cover coupled to an envelope. Pratt teaches wherein the evaporation channel is defined at least in part by a cover (102) having edges and a center portion (184, filter) (figure 2c) coupled to the envelope (110) along a length of the vapor-transfer surface(124) (figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel with a cover and center portion coupled to the envelope similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032), and so that the envelope may keep everything in place (Pratt, paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 25, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel comprises a return path. Bishop fails to a feedback path substantially parallel to the fluid transfer bridge. Pratt teaches a feedback path substantially parallel to the fluid transfer bridge (two-way arrows in figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of bridge of Bishop to include a feedback path substantially parallel to the fluid transfer bridge similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032), and so that the flow is dual directional (paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 27, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 25. Bishop fails to teach wherein the feedback path comprises at least one side having a textured surface configured to maintain an open flow path under external pressure.. Pratt teaches wherein the feedback path comprises at least one side having a textured surface configured to maintain an open flow path under external pressure (paragraph [0032-0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of bridge of Bishop wherein the feedback path comprises at least one side having a textured surface configured to maintain an open flow path under external pressure similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032), and so that the flow is dual directional (paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 29, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel comprises a return path. Pratt teaches wherein the evaporation channel (144) comprises a return path (two-way arrows in figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop to include an evaporation channel with a return path similar to that disclosed by Pratt so that the bridge may transport a fluid under a pressure gradient (Pratt, paragraph 0032), and so that the flow is dual directional (paragraph 0032).
Claims 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2019133830 A1) in view of Coulthard (WO 2012142002 A1) in view of Pratt (USPGPUB 20130123722) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Mercer (US 20180214315 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel comprises at least one side that is embossed. Mercer teaches a wound dressing wherein the evaporation channel comprises at least one side that is embossed (paragraph [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wound dressing of Bishop wherein the evaporation channel comprises at least one side that is embossed, similar to Mercer to serve as additional fluid pathways (as motivated by Mercer, paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 28, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 25. Bishop fails to teach wherein the feedback path comprises at least one side that is embossed. Mercer teaches a wound dressing wherein the feedback path comprises at least one side that is embossed (paragraph [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wound dressing of Bishop wherein the evaporation channel comprises at least one side that is embossed, similar to Mercer to serve as additional fluid pathways (as motivated by Mercer, paragraph [0066]).
Claims 11, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2019133830 A1) in view of Coulthard (WO 2012142002 A1) in view of Pratt (USPGPUB 20130123722) as applied to claim 1 above, and further view of Wu (US 20130144230 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop teaches an envelope (208) configured to withstand external pressure (paragraph 0061) but both Bishop and Pratt fail to teach a raised pattern or protrusions. Wu teaches a device used to reduce pressure at a wound care site (abstract) comprising: a raised pattern of protrusions (support structures, 205) (figure 4) configured to support the envelope under external pressure (paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the envelope of Bishop in view of Coulthard to include a raised protrusions similar to that disclosed by Wu to mitigate collapse of a channel under external pressure (Wu, paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 13, Bishop in view of Coulthard and Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Bishop teaches an envelope (208) configured to withstand external pressure (paragraph 0061). However both Bishop and Coulthard fail to teach wherein the envelope comprises bosses. Wu teaches wherein the envelop (conduit body, 105) comprises bosses (205) configured to withstand external pressure (paragraph 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the envelope of Bishop in view of Coulthard to include bosses similar to that disclosed by Wu to mitigate collapse of a channel under external pressure (Wu, paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 18, Bishop in view Coulthard teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel comprises a raised pattern of protrusions. Wu teaches wherein the evaporation channel (200) comprises a raised pattern of protrusions (205) (figure 5) configured to support the evaporation channel under external pressure (paragraph 0047). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop in view of Pratt to include a raised pattern of protrusions similar to that disclosed by Wu to mitigate collapse of a channel under external pressure (Wu, paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 20, Bishop in view of Pratt teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Bishop fails to teach wherein the evaporation channel comprises bosses. Wu teaches wherein a channel further comprises bosses (205) (figure 4) configured to support the channel under external pressure (paragraph 0047). And it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mode of evaporation of Bishop in view of Pratt to include a raised pattern of protrusions similar to that disclosed by Wu to mitigate collapse of a channel under external pressure (Wu, paragraph 0047).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights