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
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s addition of new claim 42 was previously acknowledged and entered in the advisory action mailed 10/20/2025.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 43-45 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-12, and 42-45 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments of claim 1 overcomes the combination of Locke (US 2014/0277454 A1) and Zaguroli (US 2006/0229545 A1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “a rigidity of the patch is configured to be adjusted via one or more of: a size and spacing of a plurality of apertures on the backbone, a thickness of the central portion, a material of the patch, and a thickness of the patch”. For the prior art to meet the limitation “a rigidity …configured to be adjusted”, the prior art need only disclose one of the properties of a size and spacing of a plurality of apertures on the backbone, a thickness of the central portion, a material of the patch, and a thickness of the patch as capable of being modified or adjusted. The prior art of Locke discloses the use of multiple materials for the base layer of the patch (see [0012]), a range of thicknesses of said base layer which explicitly modifies a Shore Hardness of the base layer (i.e. a rigidity of the base layer; see [0013]), and the inclusion of additional layers of material in the central portion (which modifies both a thickness and a material of the patch; see [0017]). Therefore, Locke discloses modifying three of the four properties required for a rigidity of the patch to be “configured to be adjusted” and thus, discloses a rigidity of the patch is configured to be adjusted.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments of claim 43 overcomes the combination of Locke and Zaguroli. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 43 recites “wherein the patch is configured to be filled with a ultraviolet (UV) curable gel, wherein the UV curable gel is configured for selective hardening to enhance a stiffness or flexibility of the patch, wherein the UV curable gel is configured to maintain a shape of the patch” (emphasis added). For the prior art to meet the limitation “configured to be filled”, the prior art needs to only be capable of being filled with a ultraviolet (UV) curable gel. The prior art of Locke discloses the patch (10) comprises pores (18; see [0045]), wicking layers (26 and 28) which form grain structures (i.e. channels for directing fluids; see [0068]), and an absorbent layer (24) which can be formed as a number of porous materials (see [0074]). Each of the aforementioned structures of 10 are configured to be (i.e. capable of) wholly or partially filled with a ultraviolet (UV) curable gel which is configured as claimed.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments of claim 44. The Examiner notes that this claim has a lack of clarity which will be addressed below.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments of claim 45. The Examiner first notes that claim 45 includes new matter in the recitation of “imparting an external load to the treatment site via a cover for the patch”. As recited in [0088] of Applicant’s specification “a slippery cover may be applied over single or multiple patches to allow clothing to slip over the treatment area and not impart an external load to the treatment site”. Thus, because claim 45 specifically requires the functionality of imparting an external load to the treatment site, claim 45 is considered new matter. Additionally, a cover is not depicted in the figures and thus, the drawings will be objected to for failing to show the claimed subject matter of a cover. Lastly, the Examiner agrees that neither reference of Locke or Zaguroli discloses this new limitation. However, a newly found prior art reference Joseph (US 2014/0188020 A1) does disclose the claimed feature of a cover formed from a slippery material, and accordingly claim 45 will be rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as will be discussed below.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments of dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection of claim 1 over Locke in view of Zaguroli suffers as suggested by Applicant. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cover which is configured to be applied over the patch as recited in claim 45 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not provide support for the claimed limitation of “the cover is of a slippery material configured for clothing to slip over and impart an external load to the treatment site”. The specification contrarily recites in [0088] “Finally, a slippery cover may be applied over single or multiple patches to allow clothing to slip over the treatment area and not impart an external load to the treatment site”.
Claim Objections
Claim 43 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 43 recites the limitation “filled with a ultraviolet”. This limitation should be amended to recite “an ultraviolet”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 45 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.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “a cover…configured for clothing to slip over and impart an external load to the treatment site”. This limitation contradicts the specification which recites “a slippery cover may be applied over single or multiple patches to allow clothing to slip over the treatment area and not impart an external load to the treatment site” (see [0088]). Therefore, the required functionality of the cover to allow clothing to impart an external load to the treatment site” is new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 44 recites “The patch of claim 1, wherein the patch is a matrix of a plurality of patches configured for focused remodeling, wherein a first portion of the plurality of patches do not have a backbone, wherein a second portion of the plurality of patches are transition patches adjacent to the first portion of the plurality of patches and configured to reduce skin tension”. This claim appears to be claiming the single patch of claim 1 is a matrix of a plurality of patches (i.e. a system) for focused remodeling utilizing a first plurality of patches which do not comprise a backbone, and a second plurality of patches are undisclosed as to if they comprise a backbone or not. Thus, claim 44 is indefinite because it is unclear as to how the single patch of claim 1 can be a matrix of two different types of pluralities of patches, both of which do not comprise the backbone explicitly required by the single patch of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “The patch of claim 1, wherein the patch is configured for use in a matrix of a plurality of patches…”.
With respect to claim 44, the Examiner notes that if Applicant were to amend claim 44 to be an independent claim drawn to a matrix of patches including the claimed first and second portions, or to remain dependent from claim 1 and positively recite a matrix formed from two pluralities of previously unconsidered patches and the patch of claim 1, then claim 44 would be withdrawn from consideration as being directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of a single patch for treatment of cellulite, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, the claim drawn to a matrix/system of patches would be withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al. (US 2014/0277454 A1) (hereinafter Locke) in view of Zaguroli Jr. (US 2006/0229545 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Locke discloses A patch (10; see [0045]; see figure 1), comprising
a flexible pad (20 and 24 taken together; see [0047]; see figure 4; 20 is formed of silicone elastomer (see [0066]), 24 is formed from flexible materials (see [0070]) therefore 20 and 24 are considered to form a flexible pad) comprising a central portion (as indicated by A; see annotated figure 4 below) and a border portion (as indicated by B; see annotated figure 4 below), the border portion (B) being thinner than the central portion (A; see figure 4 that the central portion is thicker than the border portion); and
an adhesive (17; see [0062]; see figure 4) configured to adhere the patch (10) to skin (see [0062]);
further wherein a rigidity of the patch is configured to be adjusted via one or more of: a thickness of the central portion (see [0017] in reference to including additional layers of material in the central portion (additional layers modifies a thickness of the central portion), a material of the patch (see [0012] in reference to multiple materials contemplated for use in 12 of 10), and a thickness of the patch (see [0013] reference to a range of thicknesses of said base layer which modifies a Shore Hardness of the base layer; the three properties are configured to adjust a rigidity of 10 as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Locke does not explicitly disclose that the patch is intended to be used for the treatment of cellulite, and wherein adhering to the skin, holds the skin in a remodeled configuration that maintains a homogenously smooth topography of the dermal surface during healing including holding local skin deformities flat and in place. Though intended use does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Locke for full clarity it is obvious that Locke’s patch may be used for the treatment of cellulite by being placed over, and adhered around a surgical site after a cellulite treatment in order to hold the user’s skin in a remodeled configuration that maintains a homogenously smooth topography of the dermal surface during healing including holding local skin deformities flat and in place.
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 known that the intended use for the treatment of cellulite, and wherein the patch is configured to be adhered to the skin, thereby holding the skin in a remodeled configuration that maintains a homogenously smooth topography of the dermal surface during healing including holding local skin deformities flat and in place does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Locke and Locke’s patch is fully capable of being used for the treatment of cellulite, and adhering to the skin, to hold the skin in a remodeled configuration that maintains a homogenously smooth topography of the dermal surface during healing including holding local skin deformities flat and in place.
Locke does not disclose a backbone embedded within the flexible pad, the backbone being more rigid than the flexible pad.
However, Zaguroli teaches an analogous patch (10; see [0015]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous flexible pad (12 and 14; see [0017-0018]; see figure 1) comprising a central portion (center of 12) and a border portion (border of 12; see figure 1) further comprising:
a backbone (16; see [0020]; see figure 2) embedded within the flexible pad (12 and 14; see figures 1 and 2), the backbone (16) being more rigid than the flexible pad (12 and 14; see [0018] in reference to the stiffness of 16, considered to be more rigid than the compliant woven material of 12 and cushioning material of 14) for the purpose of providing additional stiffness to the patch for holding the skin taut (see [0025]).
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 the flexible pad as disclosed by Locke and to have included the backbone as taught by Zaguroli in order to have provided an improved flexible pad that would add the benefit of providing additional stiffness to the patch for holding the skin taut (see [0025]).
In regards to claim 4, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein the flexible pad (20 and 24) comprises a silicone elastomer (see [0066]).
In regards to claim 6, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein the adhesive (17) comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive (see [0062]).
In regards to claim 7, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses the patch (10) is shaped to be positioned adjacent to other same shaped patches to form a matrix (see figure 1 that the shape of 10 comprises flat sides which are shaped for, and capable of being positioned adjacent to other same shaped patches to form a matrix).
In regards to claim 8, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses further comprising a backing (12; see [0045]; see figure 4) positioned between the flexible pad (20 and 24) and the adhesive (17; see figure 4).
In regards to claim 10, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses further comprising a plurality of apertures (18; see [0045]; see figure 4) extending through the patch (10; see figure 4 that 18 extends through the lower layer of 10).
In regards to claim 11, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein a thickness of the flexible pad is about 0.11-0.15 in (see [0067] in reference to 20 being between 15 and 50 microns or .0006-.002 inches thick; see [0067] in reference to the absorbent layer (24) being between .05-5mm or .002-.19 inches thick; therefore 20 and 24 together in the central portion are .0026-.192 inches thick).
However, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the flexible pad is about .11-.15 inches.
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 the thickness of the flexible pad as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli from .0026-.192 inches thick to .11-.15 inches thick as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the range (see specification [0077] stating: “The central portion can have a thickness of about 0.13 in (or about 0.08-0.18 in, or about 0.11-0.15 in, etc.)”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 12, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein a thickness of the border is about 0.026-0.036 in (see [0067] in reference to 20 being between 15 and 50 microns or .0006-.002 inches thick; see [0013] in reference to 12 being between 50 microns and 10mm or .002-.39 inches thick; therefore 20 and 12 at the peripheral portions are between .0026-.392 inches).
However, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the border is about 0.026-0.036 in.
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 the thickness of the flexible pad as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli from .002-.39 inches thick to .026-.036 inches thick. as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the range (see Specification [0077] which states “The border can have a thickness of about 0.031 in (or about 0.021-0.041 in, or about 0.026-0.036 in., etc.)”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 42, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein the patch (10 of Locke) is a pad (Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines pad as: “a thin flat mat or cushion” (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pad); see figure 3 of Locke that 10 is a thin flat mat, and thus by definition is a pad) configured to contour to and move with the skin through different body positions while holding the skin in the remodeled configuration (as discussed above, 10 of Locke is capable of, and therefore configured for holding the skin in a remodeled configuration; see [0013] and [0067] that structures of 10 of Locke are flexible to conform to the shape of the recipient site (see [0013]) and thus, 10 is configured to contour and move with the user as claimed).
In regards to claim 43, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein the patch (10) is configured to be filled with a ultraviolet (UV) curable gel, wherein the UV curable gel is configured for selective hardening to enhance a stiffness or flexibility of the patch, wherein the UV curable gel is configured to maintain a shape of the patch (10 comprises pores (18; see [0045]), wicking layers (26 and 28) which form grain structures (i.e. channels for directing fluids; see [0068]), and an absorbent layer (24) which can be formed as a number of porous materials (see [0074]); each of the aforementioned structures are configured to be (i.e. capable of) wholly or partially filled with a ultraviolet (UV) curable gel which is configured as claimed).
In regards to claim 44, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke further discloses wherein the patch (10) is configured for use (see 112b interpretation above) in a matrix of a plurality of patches configured for focused remodeling, wherein a first portion of the plurality of patches do not have a backbone, wherein a second portion of the plurality of patches are transition patches adjacent to the first portion of the plurality of patches and configured to reduce skin tension (see figure 1 that the shape of 10 comprises flat sides which are configured for (i.e. capable of) being positioned adjacent to similar shaped patches to form a matrix; thus, 10 is configured for use in a matrix of a plurality of patches as claimed).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Zaguroli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Locke et al. (US 2015/0320602 A1) (hereinafter Locke ‘602).
In regards to claim 2, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke as now modified by Zaguroli further discloses wherein the backbone (16 of Zaguroli) comprises a sheet of material (see figure 2).
Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not disclose the sheet of material comprising a plurality of apertures.
However, Locke ‘602 teaches a patch (104; see [0029]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous flexible pad (112 and 116; see [0029]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous backbone (114; see [0029]; see figure 1; see [0057] in reference to 114 having a stiffness and thus is considered at least partially rigid and analogous to the backbone of Locke as now modified by Zaguroli) embedded within the pad (112 and 116; see figure 1) wherein the backbone (114) comprises a sheet of material comprising a plurality of apertures (128; see [0059]; see figure 4).
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 the backbone as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli and to have formed the backbone with a plurality of apertures as taught by Locke ‘602 in order to have provided an improved backbone that would add the benefit of reducing the cost of manufacturing by reducing the amount of materials needed to form the backbone.
In regards to claim 3, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not disclose wherein the backbone comprises a honeycomb structure.
However, Locke ‘602 teaches a patch (104; see [0029]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous flexible pad (112 and 116; see [0029]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous backbone (114; see [0029]; see figure 1; see [0057] in reference to 114 having a stiffness and thus is considered at least partially rigid and analogous to the backbone of Locke as now modified by Zaguroli) embedded within the pad (112 and 116; see figure 1) wherein the backbone (114) comprises a honeycomb structure (128; see [0059]; see figure 4).
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 the backbone as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli and to have formed the backbone with a honeycomb structure as taught by Locke ‘602 in order to have provided an improved backbone that would add the benefit of the inclusion of a honeycomb structure which would add the benefits of providing maximum strength while using minimal materials which are able to distribute forces evenly over the honeycomb.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Zaguroli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (WO 2017/063036 A1) (hereinafter Shen).
In regards to claim 5, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not disclose wherein the backbone comprises a polycarbonate.
However, Shen teaches an analogous backbone (104; see [085]; see figure 1) of an analogous wound dressing [100; see [081]; see figure 1; 100 being a wound filler is used to dress a wound and is considered analogous to that of Locke as now modified by Zaguroli) wherein the backbone (104) comprises a polycarbonate (see [020]) for the purpose of resisting compression and deformation of the device (see [023]).
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 the material of the backbone as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli and to have utilized the polycarbonate material as taught by Shen in order to have provided an improved backbone that would add the benefit of resisting compression and deformation of the device (see [023]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Zaguroli as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ribble et al. (US 2019/0321236 A1) (hereinafter Ribble).
In regards to claim 9, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not disclose wherein the backing comprises PTFE.
However, Ribble teaches an analogous backing (102; see [0018]; see figure 4) of an analogous wound dressing (100; see [0018]; see figure 1) wherein the backing (102) comprises PTFE (400; see [0024]; see figure 4) for the purpose of providing additional structure to the skin contact layer, without impacting the efficacy of the cover layer or otherwise damaging the wound (see [0024]).
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 the backing as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli and to have included the PTFE material as taught by Ribble in order to have provided an improved backing that would add the benefit of additional structure to the skin contact layer, without impacting the efficacy of the cover layer or otherwise damaging the wound (see [0024]).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke in view of Zaguroli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joseph (US 2014/0188020 A1).
In regards to claim 45, Locke as now modified by Zaguroli discloses the invention as discussed above.
Locke as now modified by Zaguroli does not disclose further comprising a cover configured to be applied over the patch, wherein the cover is of a slippery material configured for clothing to slip over and impart an external load to the treatment site.
However, Joseph teaches an analogous patch (dressing, bandage, cast; see [0023]); the patch further comprising a cover (12; see [0032]; see figure 1) configured to be applied over the patch (see [0023]), wherein the cover (12) is of a slippery material (plastic stretch film formed from polyethylene which is known in the art to be a slippery film material; see [pg 2 ln 35]); configured for clothing to slip over and impart an external load to the treatment site (12 being a polyethylene film is configured for (i.e. capable of) allowing clothing to slip over and impart an external load to the treatment site as claimed) for the purpose of providing a protective covering for the patch (see [0023]) to prevent access to the injured area by infective agents (see [0001]).
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 the patch as disclosed by Locke as now modified by Zaguroli and to have included the cover formed from a slippery material as taught by Joseph in order to have provided an improved patch that would add the benefit of providing a protective covering for the patch (see [0023]) to prevent access to the injured area by infective agents (see [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786