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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-27, 29, and 32 are still pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-27, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see argument below.
Applicant argues “Thus, Applicant respectfully argues that the previously added limitations are fully supported by the specification because: (1) Applicant teaches dip coating ("dipping the bandage material in a bath") and metering the cohesive formula to the desired coat weight, and (2) Exhibits A and B provide evidence that layers are formed on the surface of a substrate when dip coating is used to apply a solution. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are fully supported by the written description because layers are created via application methods taught in the specification resulting in sequential layers of zinc oxide being formed as recited by the instant claims. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection is therefore respectfully requested”; however, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to Exhibit B presented in the remarks, it is understandable that “dip coating” results in “a thin surface layer on the base fabric” and that in this process “both sides can be coated in one pass”. Both sides of the compression bandage can be coated with the zinc oxide composition layer in one pass, but it is only one continuous layer of zinc oxide composition that is on both sides of the compression bandage rather than two separate layers of zinc oxide on the compression bandage. When stating the limitation of claim 1 “a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition…a second laminated layer of zinc oxide” it mentions a second laminated layer of zinc oxide rather than only the first continuous laminated layer of zinc oxide surrounding the compression bandage on both sides. When dipped via a bath method, there would technically only be one continuous layer of zinc oxide composition encasing the exposed outer surfaces of the compression bandage (which supports how the compression bandage can be used on either side: page 9, lines 5-7).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 10-11, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see arguments below.
Applicant argues “More specifically, in contrast to the Examiner's assertion, Yahiaoui et al. does not teach a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition as recited by the instant claims” and “This teaching does not meet the limitations of the current claims wherein the zinc oxide composition is present as a layer. Instead, the Examiner is improperly reading limitations into the reference that are not there. Menzies and Hoffman fail to provide for this deficiency of Yahiaoui. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Menzies in view Yahiaoui and Hoffman fails to teach or consider all features of the currently amended claims as required by MPEP 2143 for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness”; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Yahiaoui et al., it discloses a liquid permeable top sheet (22 – figure 2) that comprises zinc oxide composition and a pair of elastic legs (26 – figure 2) that are fixed together via attachments such as adhesive, sonic bonds, and thermal bonds (paragraph 0048-0049/0052/0059). The liquid permeable top sheet (22) and pair of elastic legs (26) is one layer bonded together (hence laminated), and the liquid permeable top sheet (22) comprises skin health agents that are compounds, compositions or formulation; such skin health agents include zinc oxide (paragraph 0059). Therefore, the liquid permeable top sheet (22) comprising of zinc oxide composition and pair of elastic legs (26) still reads on the limitation of “a first laminated zinc oxide composition layer”. Furthermore, in claim 1, it was not specified that all laminates of the first laminated layer should only include the zinc oxide composition.
Applicant argues “The Examiner further submits that Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. "fails to disclose the woven polyester layer sequentially followed by a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition." Thus, the Examiner relies upon Hoffman for such teaching. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection. More specifically, Applicant respectfully submits Hoffman teaches away from that which is taught by Yahiaoui, and therefore, their combination is improper and Hoffman cannot be combined with Yahiaoui to reject the claims. It is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their combination. In re Graselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also MPEP 2145 (X.D.2). In this regard, Yahiaoui teaches absorption of fluid in its diaper whereby the layers of the diaper are designed to move fluid away from the body (Paragraph 0059; claim 1). In contrast, Hoffman teaches a substrate that provides multiple releases of active agents into the human body (title; abstract; [0029]). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no motivation provided by the Examiner to combine and/or modify these references with the expectation of successfully arriving at the instantly claimed invention since they contain such divergent teachings. The Examiner has not shown some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally available in the art, that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references and arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. V. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 745 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996)”; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Yahiaoui et al. have layers designed to move fluid away from the body, Yahiaoui et al. was used to teach the first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (22/26), which has skin health benefits such as protecting, repairing, moisturizing or otherwise providing relief to damaged or undamaged skin (paragraph 0059). Similarly, Hoffman et al. teaches a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (15/20/25), which is used to impart beneficial effect on the skin (paragraph 0053); Hoffman et al. also teaches absorbing or moving fluid away from the body (paragraph 0048-0050). Accordingly, both have the same principal of providing benefits the user’s skin, but also moving fluid away the skin. Therefore, there is a motivation (which is to promote skin health) to add the first and second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition of Yahiaoui et al. and Hoffman et al. to Menzies et al. since they are analogous. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument because to teach away, a reference must actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed). In this case, we could not find any passage in Yahiaoui et al. and Applicant does not point to any passage in Yahiaoui et al. that in any way criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of the first polymer matrix and second polymer matrix comprising zinc oxide, as taught by Hoffman, for providing benefits to the user’s skin.
Applicant argues “To the contrary, the only place one can find such a suggestion is in the Applicant's specification. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction in making the determination of obviousness. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed Cir. 1992) states that "It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template' to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious." Further case law states that one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to deprecate the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Applicant respectfully believes that the Examiner has improperly chosen the available limitations taught by the combination of these references and asserted the theory that all other limitations are merely an obvious variation of the teachings of those references. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that one having ordinary skill in the art would not look to Hoffman (time release of active agents into the human body; [0023, 0028, 0029, 0076]), combine and modify its teachings with those of Menzies (laminate composite with nonwoven for stretch limit) in view of Yahiaoui (a diaper designed to move moisture away from a target substrate) and expect to successfully arrive at Applicant's invention. It is illogical and unreasonable, without teachings from Applicant's own specification, to expect such divergent teachings to result in the presently claimed invention. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness does not exist”; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Yahiaoui et al. and Hoffman are analogous to Menzies et al. and are used to teach the first and second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition in order to promote skin health benefits (see argument above in regards to motivation). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's arguments, see page 7, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see arguments below.
Applicant argues “The Examiner submits Menzies in view of Yahiaoui and Hoffman teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the bandage material comprises calamine. Thus, the Examiner relies upon Murphy for such teaching. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Murphy teaches calamine in association with a foam material (Abstract). Murphy fails to teach calamine in association with a fabric material as recited by the instant claims. The Examiner further argues that instant claims 1 and 2 do not recite a fabric material. Applicant respectfully disagrees and points out that "nonwoven" and "warp-knitted, weft insertion" are fabric constructions. As such, the combination of references fails to teach or consider each limitation of Applicant's claimed invention. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested”; however, examine respectfully disagrees. In claim 2, it states “the bandage material comprises calamine” not “calamine in association with a fabric material” or “the spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer/warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer comprises calamine”; therefore, as long as the calamine is present in some type of analogous bandage material, it reads on the claim language under broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, the spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer or warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer does not have to comprise of calamine because it was not specified in claim 2. With Murphy et al., it teaches a foam material comprising calamine, which is elastic and is a part of a wound care bandage system that wraps around the user’s leg; therefore, it reads on the limitation of claim 2.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5, 8-9, 12, 13, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see arguments above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-27, 29, and 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the following sequential layers: a first layer of zinc oxide composition, a spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer, an elastic layer of transversely spaced, longitudinally extending coalesced multifilament elastic polyurethane strands, and a warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer oriented with warp-knitted yarns extending longitudinally and generally parallel to the orientation of the elastic polyurethane strands; and a second layer of zinc oxide composition” raises new matter issues because in the specification the order of layers were never described. Rather, the layers were only listed out (pages 8-10). Additionally, there are no drawings to showcase the order of the layers as well. Additionally, the limitation “a second layer of zinc oxide composition” was not disclosed in the specification. The specification only disclosed that the zinc oxide composition was either distributed throughout the bandage material, present in selected regions (one or more polymer strips containing zinc oxide composition affixed along the width or length of the bandage material), or impregnated into a bandage material (pages 7-10); the second layer of zinc oxide composition was not disclosed within the bandage material.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-27, 29, and 32 are also rejected due to their dependence on rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 10-11, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) and in further view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Menzies et al. discloses a compression bandage (80 - figure 12, an elastic composite: paragraph 0067) comprising: a stretchable, wrappable bandage material (figure 12, the compression bandage [80] is stretchable and wrappable due to its elastic properties/layers and can be used as a wrap, adhesive tape, etc.: paragraph 0043/0067) for contact on a subject's skin (the compression bandage [80] is made to contact the patient’s skin: paragraph 0043), wherein the bandage material (figure 12) comprises the following sequential layers (the followings layers are in sequential order [please see examiner further notes below]: a spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer (32 - figure 12, a nonwoven layer made from spun bound polypropylene: paragraph 0049-0050/0067), an elastic layer of transversely spaced, longitudinally extending coalesced multifilament elastic polyurethane strands (22 - figure 12, the elastic layer comprises substantially spaced-apart elastomeric filaments that has the ability to stretch from its original length upon application of force; the elastic filaments of the elastic layer is oriented with their length in the machine direction [longitudinally, as seen in figure 2]. Additionally, the elastic layer can be made of polyurethane elastic filaments: paragraph 0051-0053/0067), and a warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer (20 - figure 12/13, a scrim layer that can be made of knits, including without limitation, weft insertion knits: paragraph 0065-0067) oriented with warp-knitted yarns extending longitudinally (the warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer [20] have warp-knitted yarns [23 - figure 13] extending longitudinally along its length [machine direction, as seen figure 2]: paragraph 0065-0067) and generally parallel to the orientation of the elastic polyurethane strands (22) (the elastic polyurethane strands [22] are oriented with their length in the machine direction and the warp-knitted yarn [23] are oriented in the machine direction as well; they are parallel to each other as they advance over the collector drum [24 - figure 2] and are collected on the winder roll [40 - figure 2]: paragraph 0051/0065-0067).
However, Menzies et al. fails to disclose a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition sequentially followed by a nonwoven polypropylene layer.
Yahiaoui et al. teaches a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (22/26 – figure 2, a liquid permeable top sheet that comprises zinc oxide composition [22] and a pair of elastic legs [26] which are fixed together via attachments means such as adhesive, sonic bonds, or thermal bonds: paragraph 0048-0049/0052/0059; the term “laminated is defined as “Composed of layers bonded together” by https://www.thefreedictionary.com/laminated) sequentially followed by an analogous nonwoven polypropylene layer (20 – figure 2, a vapor permeable back-sheet comprising of spun-bond nonwoven of filaments extruded from polypropylene: paragraph 0048/0056) (figure 2, the first laminated layer zinc oxide [22/26] comes before the nonwoven polypropylene layer [20]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided sequentially before the nonwoven polypropylene layer of Menzies et al. with a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition as taught by Yahiaoui et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage that promotes skin health (paragraph 0059, Yahiaoui et al.).
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. fails to disclose the woven polyester layer sequentially followed by a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition.
Hoffman et al. teaches an analogous woven polyester layer (40 – figure 3, an absorbent layer that is a woven material made of polyester: paragraph 0049) sequentially followed by a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (15/20/25 – figure 3, a first polymer matrix with an active agent [15] such as zinc oxide, a second polymer matrix with an active agent [25] such as zinc oxide, and a coacervate layer [20] that adheres the first polymer matrix [15] to the second polymer matrix [25]: paragraph 0024/0053/0063; the term “laminated is defined as “Composed of layers bonded together” by https://www.thefreedictionary.com/laminated) (figure 3, the woven polyester layer [40] is followed by a second layer of zinc oxide composition [15/20/25]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided sequentially after the woven polyester layer Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. with a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition as taught by Hoffman et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage that has an improved bandage material to provide a skin protectant that benefits the user’s skin and to improve the aesthetic feel of the wrap (paragraph 0053/0063, Hoffman et al.).
Examiner further notes: Claim 1 is an open-ended claim because the limitation has the word “comprise”. Therefore, the claim was interpreted broadly. The layers do have to be in sequential order, however, there can be intervening structures.
Regarding claim 10, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the compression bandage has an unstretched length and a maximum stretched length, wherein the maximum stretched length is about 40-80% or more greater than the unstretched length.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the compression bandage’s maximum stretched length to be 40-80% or more greater than the unstretched length to ensure that the compression bandage is conformable to the body contours and serve a therapeutic purpose by applying necessary elastically-resilient pressure over an injured or wounded area during the period the bandage is in place (paragraph 0003/0010, Menzies et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that in some preferred materials, the bandage material may have a maximum stretched length that is at least 40%-80%, 90%, or 100%” or more greater than the material’s unstretched length (written specification: page 2).
Regarding claim 11, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Menzies et al. further discloses wherein the compression bandage (80) is stretchable to provide a compressive force when wrapped about a limb of a subject (the compression dressing [80] is stretchable due to its elastic properties/materials and inherently provides a compression force/pressure when wrapped around a limb: paragraph 0002-0003/0043).
Regarding claim 16, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses a method for treating a subject comprising: wrapping the compression bandage of claim 1 around a subject (see claim 1’s rejection above: Menzies et al. discloses a compression bandage (80 - figure 12, an elastic composite: paragraph 0067) comprising: a stretchable, wrappable bandage material (figure 12, the compression bandage [80] is stretchable and wrappable due to its elastic properties/layers and can be used as a wrap, adhesive tape, etc.: paragraph 0043/0067) for contact on a subject's skin (the compression bandage [80] is made to contact the patient’s skin: paragraph 0043), wherein the bandage material (figure 12) comprises the following sequential layers (the followings layers are in sequential order [please see examiner further notes above]: a spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer (32 - figure 12, a nonwoven layer made from spun bound polypropylene: paragraph 0049-0050/0067), an elastic layer of transversely spaced, longitudinally extending coalesced multifilament elastic polyurethane strands (22 - figure 12, the elastic layer comprises substantially spaced-apart elastomeric filaments that has the ability to stretch from its original length upon application of force; the elastic filaments of the elastic layer is oriented with their length in the machine direction [longitudinally, as seen in figure 2]. Additionally, the elastic layer can be made of polyurethane elastic filaments: paragraph 0051-0053/0067), and a warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer (20 - figure 12/13, a scrim layer that can be made of knits, including without limitation, weft insertion knits: paragraph 0065-0067) oriented with warp-knitted yarns extending longitudinally (the warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer [20] have warp-knitted yarns [23 - figure 13] extending longitudinally along its length [machine direction, as seen figure 2]: paragraph 0065-0067) and generally parallel to the orientation of the elastic polyurethane strands (22) (the elastic polyurethane strands [22] are oriented with their length in the machine direction and the warp-knitted yarn [23] are oriented in the machine direction as well; they are parallel to each other as they advance over the collector drum [24 - figure 2] and are collected on the winder roll [40 - figure 2]: paragraph 0051/0065-0067; Yahiaoui et al. teaches a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (22/34 – figure 2, a liquid permeable top sheet that comprises zinc oxide composition [22] and a surge management material made of nonwoven materials such as polypropylene core surface/polyethylene sheath that are fixed together via attachments means such as adhesive, sonic bonds, or thermal bonds: paragraph 0048/0052/0059/0075); Hoffman et al. teaches a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (15/20/25 – figure 3, a first polymer matrix with an active agent [15] such as zinc oxide, a second polymer matrix with an active agent [25] such as zinc oxide, and a coacervate layer [20] that adheres the first polymer matrix [15] to the second polymer matrix [25]: paragraph 0024/0053/0063), wherein the compression bandage (80) directly contacts skin of the subject (figure 12, the compression bandage [80] directly contacts the skin of the subject via the pressure-sensitive adhesive [44 - figure 12]: paragraph 0064/0067).
Regarding claim 18, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 16. Menzies et al. further discloses wherein the compression bandage (80) applies a compressive force to the subject (the compression dressing [80] is stretchable due to its elastic properties/materials and inherently provides a compression force/pressure when wrapped around a limb or over an injured area: paragraph 0002-0003/0043).
Regarding claim 20, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 16. Menzies et al. further discloses wherein the compression bandage (80) is not utilized with another separate bandage material (figure 12, the compression bandage [80] is not utilized with another separate bandage material, the compression bandage [80] is the only product applied onto the subject’s skin).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Murphy et al. (US 20130085435 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material comprises calamine.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein the analogous bandage material (the inner layer [10] is made of an elastic foam material: paragraph 0035) comprises calamine (the bandage material contains a zinc oxide composition comprising of calamine: paragraph 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with calamine as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved bandage material to improve wound healing and control of edema (paragraph 0019, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material comprises one or more of an antibiotic, an antibacterial agent, an antimicrobial agent, an anti-odor agent, an anti-inflammatory agent, an anti-fungal agent, an anti-viral agent, an anti-cancer agent, an eczema or psoriasis treatment agent, a pain relieving agent, or combination thereof.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein an analogous bandage material (the inner layer [10 - figure 1] is made of an elastic foam material: paragraph 0035) comprises one or more of an antibiotic, an antibacterial agent, an antimicrobial agent, an anti- odor agent, an anti-inflammatory agent, an anti-fungal agent, an anti-viral agent, an anti-cancer agent, an eczema or psoriasis treatment agent, a pain relieving agent, or combination thereof (the bandage material [10] comprises an antimicrobial agent such as inorganic metal based/organic antimicrobial agents [such as silver nanoparticles]: paragraph 0041-0042).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with one or more of an antibiotic, an antibacterial agent, an antimicrobial agent, an anti- odor agent, an anti-inflammatory agent, an anti-fungal agent, an anti-viral agent, an anti-cancer agent, an eczema or psoriasis treatment agent, a pain relieving agent, or combination thereof as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved bandage material to prevent or inhibit the growth/reproduction of microbes (paragraph 0041, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents are distributed substantially uniformly throughout the bandage material.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents are distributed substantially uniformly throughout the analogous bandage material (the inner layer [10] is made of an elastic foam material: paragraph 0035) (figure 5, the zinc oxide is uniformly distributed throughout the bandage material via impregnation: paragraph 0036).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents that is distributed substantially uniformly throughout the bandage material as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved bandage material that allows the composition to be employed evenly to deliver the correct level of medication to the area to be treated (paragraph 0013, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 14, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material is in a roll.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein an analogous bandage material (the inner layer [10] is made of an elastic foam material: paragraph 0035) is in a roll (the inner layer [10] comprising the bandage material may wound into a roll: paragraph 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. to be in a roll as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandaging that has an improved packaging to allow for convenient storage and transport prior to use (paragraph 0049, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material is between 1 and 6 inches wide and rolled along the bandage material length.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein an analogous bandage material (the inner layer [10] is made of an elastic foam material: paragraph 0035) is between 1 and 6 inches wide (the inner layer [10] comprising the bandage material is between 3-4 inches, which falls within the claimed ranges: paragraph 0052) and rolled along the analogous bandage material length (the inner layer [10] comprising the bandage material is rolled for convenient storage: paragraph 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. to be between 1 and 6 inches wide and rolled along the bandage material length as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved bandage material to impart some degree of compression to a patient’s leg (paragraph 0046/0052, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the compression bandage is wrapped around a limb, torso or head of a subject.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein an analogous compression bandage (10 - figure 1, an inner layer made of elastic foam material: paragraph 0035) is wrapped around a limb, torso or head of a subject (the compression bandage [10] wrapped around the leg: paragraph 0012).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. wrap around a limb, torso, or head of a subject as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage to impart some degree of compression to a patient’s leg and allow the compression bandage to conform to all sizes and shape (paragraph 0015/0046/0052, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose the zinc oxide composition and/or one or more therapeutic agents is administered transdermally to the subject.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or one or more therapeutic agents is administered transdermally to the subject via analogous compression bandage (10) (skin absorbs zinc oxide since bandage material is impregnated with zinc oxide and is in contact with the skin: paragraph 0013/0019).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. transdermally administer the zinc oxide composition and/or one or more therapeutic agents as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage to improve wound healing and control of edema (paragraph 0017, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose applying a distinct bandage or protective layer over the compression bandage.
Murphy et al. teaches applying a distinct bandage or protective layer over an analogous compression bandage (10) (20 - figure 1, an outer layer wraps over the compression bandage [10]: paragraph 0010).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with a distinct bandage or protective layer over the compression bandage as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage to enhance the compression exerted by the compression exerted by the compression bandage (paragraph 0046, Murphy et al.).
Regarding claim 23, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the method of claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the subject is identified as suffering from a disease or disorder that may be treated with the compression bandage.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein the subject is identified as suffering from a disease or disorder that may be treated with an analogous compression bandage (10) (the compression bandage [10] can treat eczema, ulcers, edema, and other wounds or sores of the lower extremities: paragraph 0002).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. treat a subject suffering from a disease or disorder as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage to treat edema, eczema, ulcers, and other wounds or sores of the lower extremities having various origins (paragraph 0002, Murphy et al.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) in view of Murphy et al. (US 20130085435 A1) and in further view of Ilbay (WO 2005007050 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Murphy et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 4.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Murphy et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material comprises one or more of aloe; menthol; mupirocin; witch hazel, tree tea oil; clindamycin; anthralin; clotrimazole; ketoconazole; terbinafine; benzoyl peroxide; coal tar; corticosteroids; crisaborole; retinoids; salicylic acid; acyclovir; 5- fluorouracil; 5- fluorouracil, diclofenac; hyaluronic acid; imiquimod; ingenol mebutate; adalimumab; and eucrisa.
Ilbay teaches wherein the analogous bandage material (elastic bandage that conforms to the anatomical shape of the body parts: page 4, lines 25-33/page 5, lines 1-12) comprises one or more of aloe; menthol; mupirocin; witch hazel, tree tea oil; clindamycin; anthralin; clotrimazole; ketoconazole; terbinafine; benzoyl peroxide; coal tar; corticosteroids; crisaborole; retinoids; salicylic acid; acyclovir; 5-fluorouracil; 5- fluorouracil, diclofenac; hyaluronic acid; imiquimod; ingenol mebutate; adalimumab; and eucrisa (the bandage material comprises menthol: page 3, lines 17-29/page 6, lines 15-23).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Murphy et al. with menthol as taught by Ilbay in order to provide a compression dressing that has an improved bandage material including menthol to cool trauma site and promote rapid healing and quick relief of patient’s pain (page 4, lines 17-29, Ilbay).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Hyson (US 20030139698 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents reside in selected regions of the bandage material.
Hyson teaches wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents (zinc oxide, allantoin, and dimethicone are some examples of skin protectants: paragraph 0066) reside in selected regions of the analogous bandage material (bandage material of the main body [14 - see annotated figure 1 below]: paragraph 0020) (A - see annotated figure 1 below, the zinc oxide is in a specific region of the bandage material of the main body [14]; the zinc oxide is located at the pad [22] region only: paragraph 0020).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: a pad in a specific region of the bandage material with zinc oxide
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with zinc oxide composition in selected regions of the bandage material as taught by Hyson in order to provide a compression dressing that has an improved bandage material to help accurately dispense the medicament to a specific location of pain on the body (paragraph 0007-0008, Hyson).
Regarding claim 9, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents are present in first regions of the bandage material and are not present in second regions of the bandage materials which are distinct from the first regions.
Hyson teaches wherein the zinc oxide composition and/or therapeutic agents (list of protectants used: Paragraph 0066) are present in first regions (A - see annotated figure 1 above, the zinc oxide is present in the pad [22]: paragraph 0020) of the analogous bandage material (bandage material of the main body [14 - see annotated figure 1 below]: paragraph 0020) and are not present in second regions (B - see annotated figure 1 above, the second region of the bandage material of the main body [14] that does not contain zinc oxide) of the analogous bandage materials (bandage material of the main body [14]: paragraph 0020) (see annotated figure 1 above, the first region [A] comprise the zinc oxide in the pad [22] while the second region [B] does not comprise of zinc oxide: paragraph 0020).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with zinc oxide composition in selected regions of the bandage material as taught by Hyson in order to provide a compression dressing that has an improved bandage material because it helps accurately dispense the medicament to the specific location of the pain on the body (paragraph 0007-0008, Hyson).
Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Suehr et al. (US 20020099318 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material comprises latex.
Suehr et al. teaches wherein an analogous bandage material (the bandage system [12 - figure 6] comprises the inner [10 - figure 6], second [22 - figure 6], and third layer bandage [24 - figure 6]; each layer is made of different material: paragraph 0061) comprises latex (the third layer [24] within the compression bandage system [12] comprises latex: paragraph 0056).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with latex as taught by Suehr et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has because it allows the latex cohesive in the material to stick upon itself without requiring clips or other attachment media, which ensures that the bandage stays in place when wrapped around a limb (paragraph 0061, Suehr et al.).
Regarding claim 27, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the compression bandage of claim 1 (see claim 1’s rejection above: Menzies et al. discloses a compression bandage (80 - figure 12, an elastic composite: paragraph 0067) comprising: a stretchable, wrappable bandage material (figure 12, the compression bandage [80] is stretchable and wrappable due to its elastic properties/layers and can be used as a wrap, adhesive tape, etc.: paragraph 0043/0067) for contact on a subject's skin (the compression bandage [80] is made to contact the patient’s skin: paragraph 0043), wherein the bandage material (figure 12) comprises the following sequential layers (the followings layers are in sequential order [please see examiner further notes above]: a spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer (32 - figure 12, a nonwoven layer made from spun bound polypropylene: paragraph 0049-0050/0067), an elastic layer of transversely spaced, longitudinally extending coalesced multifilament elastic polyurethane strands (22 - figure 12, the elastic layer comprises substantially spaced-apart elastomeric filaments that has the ability to stretch from its original length upon application of force; the elastic filaments of the elastic layer is oriented with their length in the machine direction [longitudinally, as seen in figure 2]. Additionally, the elastic layer can be made of polyurethane elastic filaments: paragraph 0051-0053/0067), and a warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer (20 - figure 12/13, a scrim layer that can be made of knits, including without limitation, weft insertion knits: paragraph 0065-0067) oriented with warp-knitted yarns extending longitudinally (the warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer [20] have warp-knitted yarns [23 - figure 13] extending longitudinally along its length [machine direction, as seen figure 2]: paragraph 0065-0067) and generally parallel to the orientation of the elastic polyurethane strands (22) (the elastic polyurethane strands [22] are oriented with their length in the machine direction and the warp-knitted yarn [23] are oriented in the machine direction as well; they are parallel to each other as they advance over the collector drum [24 - figure 2] and are collected on the winder roll [40 - figure 2]: paragraph 0051/0065-0067; Yahiaoui et al. teaches a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (22/34 – figure 2, a liquid permeable top sheet that comprises zinc oxide composition [22] and a surge management material made of nonwoven materials such as polypropylene core surface/polyethylene sheath that are fixed together via attachments means such as adhesive, sonic bonds, or thermal bonds: paragraph 0048/0052/0059/0075); Hoffman et al. teaches a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (15/20/25 – figure 3, a first polymer matrix with an active agent [15] such as zinc oxide, a second polymer matrix with an active agent [25] such as zinc oxide, and a coacervate layer [20] that adheres the first polymer matrix [15] to the second polymer matrix [25]: paragraph 0024/0053/0063).
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose a kit comprising written instructions for use and/or identifying information of the compression bandage.
Suehr et al. teaches a kit (a kit with compression bandage: paragraph 0002/0008) written instructions for use (directions to apply compression bandage [12- figure 6, a bandage system that comprises an inner {10 - figure 6}, second {22 - figure 6}, and third layer bandage {24 - figure 6}: paragraph 0061]: paragraph 0058-0059) and/or identifying information of an analogous compression bandage (12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with a kit that has written instructions for use as taught by Suehr et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved packaging including the written instructions for use to it provides clarity and directions on how to apply the wound dressing (paragraph 0058-0059, Suehr et al.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Paik et al. (US 20030195284 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the bandage material is latex-free.
Paik et al. teaches wherein an analogous bandage material (an elastic compression bandage: Paragraph 0005) is latex-free (the elastic compression bandage is a natural rubber that is latex-free: Paragraph 0006).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. to be latex-free as taught by Paik et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved bandage material to reduce the bio-burden of the bandage without the need for prolonged pre-treatment sterilization processes (paragraph 0006, Paik et al.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) in view of Murphy et al. (US 20130085435 A1) and in further view of Gilman et al. (US 5005567 A).
Regarding claim 22, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Murphy et al. discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 21.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Murphy et al. fails to disclose wherein the distinct bandage or protective layer is a sleeve or stocking.
Gilman et al. teaches wherein an analogous distinct bandage or protective layer is a sleeve or stocking (a knit stocking over the wrapped bandage material: column 4, lines 6-16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protective layer of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Murphy et al. to be a stocking as taught by Gilman et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved protective layer including the stocking to provide proper pressure gradient for the wound site and improve the healing rate of the wound site (column 1, lines 44-52/column 2, lines 20- 31/column 3, lines 55-61, Gilman et al.).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Giles (US 20080020025 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the subject is identified as suffering from a skin cancer or a skin pre-cancer.
Giles teaches wherein an analogous subject is identified as suffering from a skin cancer or a skin pre-cancer (the therapeutic composition can be placed on an analogous compression garment, such as bandages, and can treat precancerous lesions, polyps or cancer: paragraph 0016/0026/0141).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for treating a subject of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. that is suffering from a skin cancer or skin pre-cancer as taught by Giles in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved method of treatment since the therapeutic composition on the compression bandage enhances site affinity and penetrate/disrupt the metabolic function of microorganisms (paragraph 0141, Giles).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Stoecker (US 20180064841 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the subject is identified as suffering from hypertrophic solar keratoses, actinic keratosis and/or squamous cell carcinoma.
Stoecker teaches wherein an analogous subject is identified as suffering from hypertrophic solar keratoses, actinic keratosis and/or squamous cell carcinoma (the zinc oxide composition can be placed on an analogous compression bandage to treat squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis: paragraph 0059/0119/0122).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for treating a subject of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. that is suffering from actinic keratosis or squamous cell carcinoma as taught by Stoecker in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved method of treatment since zinc oxide has shown to be beneficial in expediating the rate of wound healing of acute and chronic wounds compared to platelet-derived growth factor and provides debridement (paragraph 0051/0065, Stoecker).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) and in further view of Keller et al. (US 20110208101 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 16.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose wherein the compression bandage comprises one or more of 5-fluorouracil, diclofenac and/or hyaluronic acid, imiquimod and ingenol mebutate.
Keller et al. teaches wherein an analogous compression bandage (100 - figure 1, a compression dressing: paragraph 0024) comprises one or more of 5-fluorouracil, diclofenac and/or hyaluronic acid, imiquimod and ingenol mebutate (the compression bandage [100] comprises hyaluronic acid: paragraph 0025).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with hyaluronic acid as taught by Keller et al. in order to provide an improved compression bandage with absorbent properties to absorb fluids from the wound site: paragraph 0007/0025, Keller et al.).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) in view of Suehr et al. (US 20020099318 A1) and in further view of Murphy et al. (US 20130085435 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Suehr et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 27.
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Suehr et al. fails to disclose wherein the compression bandage is in roll form.
Murphy et al. teaches wherein an analogous compression bandage (10) is in roll form (compression bandage [10] wound into roll for convenient storage and transport: paragraph 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Suehr et al. to be in a roll as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandaging that has an improved packaging to allow for convenient storage and transport prior to use (paragraph 0049, Murphy et al.).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menzies et al. (US 20050084647 A1) in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 20050136773 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20100150989 A1) in view of Suehr et al. (US 20020099318 A1) in view of DiSalvo et al. (US 20040266302 A1) and in further view of Murphy et al. (US 20130085435 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. discloses the compression bandage of claim 1 (see claim 1’s rejection above: Menzies et al. discloses a compression bandage (80 - figure 12, an elastic composite: paragraph 0067) comprising: a stretchable, wrappable bandage material (figure 12, the compression bandage [80] is stretchable and wrappable due to its elastic properties/layers and can be used as a wrap, adhesive tape, etc.: paragraph 0043/0067) for contact on a subject's skin (the compression bandage [80] is made to contact the patient’s skin: paragraph 0043), wherein the bandage material (figure 12) comprises the following sequential layers (the followings layers are in sequential order [please see examiner further notes above]: a spun bound polypropylene nonwoven layer (32 - figure 12, a nonwoven layer made from spun bound polypropylene: paragraph 0049-0050/0067), an elastic layer of transversely spaced, longitudinally extending coalesced multifilament elastic polyurethane strands (22 - figure 12, the elastic layer comprises substantially spaced-apart elastomeric filaments that has the ability to stretch from its original length upon application of force; the elastic filaments of the elastic layer is oriented with their length in the machine direction [longitudinally, as seen in figure 2]. Additionally, the elastic layer can be made of polyurethane elastic filaments: paragraph 0051-0053/0067), and a warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer (20 - figure 12/13, a scrim layer that can be made of knits, including without limitation, weft insertion knits: paragraph 0065-0067) oriented with warp-knitted yarns extending longitudinally (the warp-knitted, weft insertion polyester layer [20] have warp-knitted yarns [23 - figure 13] extending longitudinally along its length [machine direction, as seen figure 2]: paragraph 0065-0067) and generally parallel to the orientation of the elastic polyurethane strands (22) (the elastic polyurethane strands [22] are oriented with their length in the machine direction and the warp-knitted yarn [23] are oriented in the machine direction as well; they are parallel to each other as they advance over the collector drum [24 - figure 2] and are collected on the winder roll [40 - figure 2]: paragraph 0051/0065-0067; Yahiaoui et al. teaches a first laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (22/34 – figure 2, a liquid permeable top sheet that comprises zinc oxide composition [22] and a surge management material made of nonwoven materials such as polypropylene core surface/polyethylene sheath that are fixed together via attachments means such as adhesive, sonic bonds, or thermal bonds: paragraph 0048/0052/0059/0075); Hoffman et al. teaches a second laminated layer of zinc oxide composition (15/20/25 – figure 3, a first polymer matrix with an active agent [15] such as zinc oxide, a second polymer matrix with an active agent [25] such as zinc oxide, and a coacervate layer [20] that adheres the first polymer matrix [15] to the second polymer matrix [25]: paragraph 0024/0053/0063)
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. fails to disclose a kit that comprises 1) a box unit, 2) a roll of the compression bandage of claim 1, 3) written instructions for use and/or identifying information of the compression bandage.
Suehr et al. teaches a kit (a kit with compression bandage: paragraph 0002/0008) that comprises 3) written instructions for use (directions to apply compression bandage [12- figure 6, a bandage system that comprises an inner {10 - figure 6}, second {22 - figure 6}, and third layer bandage {24 - figure 6}: paragraph 0061]: paragraph 0058-0059) and/or identifying information of an analogous compression bandage (12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the compression bandage of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. and in further view of Hoffman et al. with a kit that has written instructions for use as taught by Suehr et al. in order to provide a compression bandage that has an improved packaging including the written instructions for use to it provides clarity and directions on how to apply the wound dressing (paragraph 0058-0059, Suehr et al.).
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Suehr et al. fails to disclose a kit that comprises 1) a box unit, 2) a roll of the compression bandage of claim 1.
DiSalvo teaches an analogous kit (primary package for absorbent articles [including bandages]: paragraph 0002) that comprises a box unit (the analogous absorbent articles [including bandages] are packaged into a box: paragraph 0065).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. and in further view of Suehr et al. with a box unit as taught by DiSalvo in order to provide a kit that has improved packaging to protect the product from unwanted environmental affects (paragraph 0065, DiSalvo).
However, Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. in view of Suehr et al. and in further view of DiSalvo fails to disclose 2) a roll of the compression bandage of claim 1.
Murphy et al. teaches a roll of an analogous compression bandage (10) (compression bandage [10] wound into roll for convenient storage and transport: paragraph 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bandage material of Menzies et al. in view of Yahiaoui et al. in view of Hoffman et al. in view of Suehr et al. and in further view of DiSalvo to be in a roll as taught by Murphy et al. in order to provide a compression bandaging that has an improved packaging to allow for convenient storage and transport prior to use (paragraph 0049, Murphy et al.).
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 ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK whose telephone number is (703)756-4605. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571) 270-3076. 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.
/ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights