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 the Claims
The amendment filed 07/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 13-19 are pending and under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 02/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
With regard applicant’s argument, see pages 5-6, with respect 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered and are at least partially persuasive, but are moot in light of new rejection/interpretation, necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments.
No specific argument was made to dependent claims.
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 1-3, 6-8, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton et al (US 20190021912 A1) in view of Moreland et al (US 20160051413 A1) and Meijer et al (US 6576338 B1)
Regarding Claim 1, Cotton teaches an absorbent component for a wound dressing (figure 2 and abstract, absorbent layer 18 for a wound dressing), comprising:
a stitch bonded nonwoven substrate ([0028] and [0033], absorbent layer comprises a non-woven fabric stitch bonded with a resilient yarn), the nonwoven substrate stitch bonded with an elastomeric yarn ([0033])
Cotton does not teach the elastomeric yarn comprising a yarn core fiber and a secondary fiber disposed exteriorly around the yarn core fiber,
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely a wound care wrap, Moreland teaches the elastomeric yarn comprising a yarn core fiber (figure 7 and [0034], filament 706) and a secondary fiber (figure 7 and [0034] absorbent fiber filament 708 wraps around the filament 706) disposed exteriorly around the yarn core fiber
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotton to incorporate the teachings of Moreland and provide the elastomeric yarn comprising a yarn core fiber and a secondary fiber disposed exteriorly around the yarn core fiber, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of providing absorption capacity to the stitches while maintaining the mechanical integrity of the stitches, thereby effectively preventing wound exudate accumulated in the dressing leak through the stitching bindings.
The combination does not expressly teach the secondary fiber comprising a superabsorbent material and/or a gelling material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely a yarn containing super absorbent fibers, Meijer teaches a yarn (figure 1) comprising a secondary fiber comprising a superabsorbent material and/or a gelling material (figure 1 and col 2 line 65 – col 3 line 3, yarn comprising superabsorbent fiber 1 and supporting fiber 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotton, as modified by Moreland, to incorporate the teachings of Meijer and provide the secondary fiber as claimed for the purpose of reducing the bulk of the yarn while maintaining absorption capacity. Specifically, by substituting a conventional absorbent material of Moreland with a lesser overall quantity of superabsorbent material.
Regarding Claim 2, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the elastomeric yarn comprises at least 50% elastomeric material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, such that the elastomeric yarn comprises at least 50% elastomeric material as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in the size/proportions of a component. A change in size is generally recognize as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV). In the instant case, one of skill in the art motivate to do so for the purpose of providing adequate tensile strength and resilience for the dressing. Furthermore applicant has not shown unexpected result from the dimension claimed, indicating that the dimension can be within the claimed range (specification [0009]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 3, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
Cotton further teaches wherein the elastomeric yarn comprises spandex ([0019] “The resilient stitches are made in a resilient yarn such as an elastomeric yarn or linel or lycra or yarn which has good stretch and recovery or an elastane yarn which is an elastomeric yarn with greater than 85% polyurethane such as linel or Lycra or Spandex.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
Cotton further teaches the nonwoven substrate comprises superabsorbent and gelling material ([0014], [0028] nonwoven absorbent layer 18 comprises gel forming fibres comprising polysaccharide fibers, examiner’s note: as stated in applicant’s specification [0020], polysaccharide is superabsorbent and gelling material)
Cotton does not expressly teach wherein the nonwoven substrate comprises at least 30% superabsorbent and gelling material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, such that the nonwoven substrate comprises at least 30% superabsorbent as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in the size/proportions of a component. A change in size is generally recognize as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV). In the instant case, one of skill in the art motivate to do so for the purpose of providing adequate absorbent capacity for wound dressing. Furthermore applicant has not shown unexpected result from the dimension claimed, indicating that the dimension can be within the claimed range (specification [0035]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 7, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
Cotton further teaches the nonwoven substrate comprises a superabsorbent material ([0014], [0028] nonwoven absorbent layer 18 comprises gel forming fibres comprising polysaccharide fibers)
Regarding Claim 8, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 7.
Cotton further teaches wherein the superabsorbent material comprises a polysaccharide or modified polysaccharide ([0014], [0028] polysaccharide)
Regarding Claim 13, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches a wound dressing (figure 2, wound dressing) comprising the absorbent component according to claim 1 (figure 2, the wound dressing comprising absorbent component 18 modified in claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 15, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches a method of treating a wound comprising placing a wound dressing according to claim 13 over a wound (Cotton; [0010] placing wound dressing of claim 13 over a wound)
Regarding Claim 16, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the method of treatment of claim 15.
Cotton further teaches wherein the treatment is a conventional wound therapy treatment. ([0010] placing a dressing over a wound. examiner’s note: conventional wound therapy treatment is interpreted as non-negative pressure, or negative pressure wound therapy treatment as indicated in the applicant’s specification [0057]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
Cotton further teaches wherein the nonwoven substrate comprises a superabsorbent material and/or a gelling material ([0014], [0028] nonwoven absorbent layer 18 comprises gel forming fibres comprising polysaccharide fibers)
Regarding Claim 19, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
Cotton further teaches wherein the nonwoven substrate comprise a non-superabsorbent and/or non-gelling support material ([0033] The absorbent comprises a nonwoven roll formed from a web of Lyocell, Lyocell is described in Applicant’s specification [0036] as a non-superabsorbent and/or non-gelling support material).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton et al (US 20190021912 A1) in view of Moreland et al (US 20160051413 A1), Meijer et al (US 6576338 B1), and in further view of Swanson et al (US 6383958 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component of claim 1.
Cotton does not teach wherein the nonwoven substrate is a carded nonwoven substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely a nonwoven sheet materials, Swanson teaches the nonwoven substrate is a carded nonwoven substrate (col 18 lines 10-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, to incorporate the teachings of Swanson and provide the nonwoven substrate as claimed for the purpose of providing enhanced strength as taught by Swanson (col 16 lines 25-35).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adie et al (US 20110282309 A1, hereinafter Adie) in view of Cotton et al (US 20190021912 A1) in view of Moreland et al (US 20160051413 A1) and Meijer et al (US 6576338 B1).
Regarding Claim 14, Adie teaches a negative pressure apparatus comprising a wound contact layer (figure 1a, wound contact layer 102), a transmission layer (figure 1a, layer 105 [0138] “this porous layer, or transmission layer, 105”), a cover layer (figure 1a, cover layer 140) and an orifice (figure 1a, orifice 145) configured to allow a negative pressure to be applied to the negative pressure apparatus ([0160] An orifice 145 is provided in the cover film 140 to allow a negative pressure to be applied to the dressing 100.)
Adie does not teach the negative pressure apparatus comprising the absorbent component according to claim 1.
However, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches the absorbent component according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adie to incorporate the teachings of Cotton, Moreland and Meijer and provides the absorbent component of claim 1, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of increasing tensile strength and resilience of the dressing which allows the dressing to be applied to wound sites requiring a high degree of conformability and resilience, as taught by Cotton ([0006]-[0009]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton et al (US 20190021912 A1) in view of Moreland et al (US 20160051413 A1), Meijer et al (US 6576338 B1), and in further view of Adie et al (US 20110282309 A1, hereinafter Adie).
Regarding Claim 17, Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, teaches a method of treatment of claim 15.
Cotton does not teach wherein the treatment is a negative pressure wound therapy treatment.
However, In the same field of endeavor, namely a method of treating a wound, Adie teaches wherein the treatment is a negative pressure therapy treatment ([0003] “Embodiments of the present invention relate to methods and apparatuses for dressing and treating a wound with topical negative pressure (TNP) therapy”).
Adie provides the negative pressure wound therapy treatment in order to prevent outside disturbance of the wound and promote more rapid healing ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cotton, as modified by Moreland and Meijer, to incorporate the teachings of Adie and provides the negative pressure wound therapy treatment, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of promoting rapid healing of the wound.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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, Nicholas J Weiss can be reached at (571)270-1775. 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.
/S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781