DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the examiner would like to note that we did not have the same takeaway from the previous interview. The examiner’s interview summary is noted as:
PNG
media_image1.png
124
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the valve 167 cannot “prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to the dressing when the valve is in the first position and the valve 164 cannot “prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to the dressing when the valve is in the first position’ the examiner disagrees. In this case the valve would be closed in the first position.
Neither the valve 164 nor the valve 167 can be replaced by the diverting valve 254 and function as required by Weston. The examiner disagrees, as the diverter valve will still allow a change in direction, and Weston would just have a new upgraded function. Altering a function does not destroy the reference.
The applicant further argues that the motivation to combine Weston and Adams fails. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In terms of the applicant citing motivation to combine Weston and Adams in the interview, there is no such motivation on record and the examiner urges the applicant to focus on arguments in writing.
The combination of Weston and Adams fails to teach “the diverter valve is configured to allow fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to the dressing when the diverter valve is in the second position.” The examiner would like to emphasize that an “outlet” is any valve that takes the fluid away from the fluid source.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weston (US 20100298792 A1) in view of Adams (US 20060100594 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weston teaches a computer-readable medium comprising executable code for controlling a negative-pressure wound therapy system (paragraph [0045]), wherein the executable code comprises:
manipulating a position of a valve (164 or 167) between a first position and a second position (paragraph [0053]);
wherein: the valve (164 or 167)(figure 4A) is coupled between an outlet of a negative-pressure source (130 outlet) and a dressing (124), the valve is configured to allow fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to atmosphere when the diverter valve is in the first position (paragraph [0053]), and the valve is configured to prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to the dressing when the valve is in the first position(paragraph [0053]);.
However Weston fails to teach wherein the valve is a diverter valve.
Adams teaches a Vacuum Wound Dressing wherein the pump circuit contains a diverter valve (paragraph [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Weston so the valve is a diverter valve so that the valve has two operating positions. This allows for the user to choose exactly how much fluid should flow to the wound site in addition to the fluid pressure which is optimal for the treatment of the wound. This also helps to control the fluid flow so the pathway is not blocked. ( as motivated by Adams (paragraph [0023-0024])).
Regarding Claim 2, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein: the diverter valve is configured to allow fluid flow from the outlet of the negative- pressure source to the dressing when the diverter valve is in the second position (Adams, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 3, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein: the diverter valve is configured to prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative- pressure source to atmosphere when the diverter valve is in the second position (Adams, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the executable code comprises: cycling the position of the diverter valve (Adams, 254) between the first position and the second position (Weston, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1. Though the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the executable code comprises: manipulating the position of the diverter valve to hold the position of the diverter valve in an intermediate position; wherein the diverter valve is configured to allow a low flow of fluid between the outlet of the negative-pressure source and the dressing when the diverter valve is in the intermediate position, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Diverter valves are widely known in the art to have a middle position allow the flow of water from the valve inlet to be directed to either of two outlets, or through both at the same time. So even though this is not disclosed by Adams, this intermediate position is considered implied by the classification of the diverter valve.
Regarding Claim 6, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 1. Weston further teaches wherein:
the negative-pressure source (126) further comprises an inlet (figure 4A);
the inlet of the negative-pressure source is configured for fluid communication with the dressing via a first conduit (166) (figure 4A) (paragraph [0057]).; and
the outlet of the negative-pressure source is configured for fluid communication with the dressing via a second conduit (136)(figure 4A) (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 7, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 6. Weston further teaches wherein: a first pressure sensor (165) is fluidly coupled to the first conduit (166)(figure 4A)(paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 8, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 6. Weston further teaches wherein: a second pressure sensor (137) is fluidly coupled to the second conduit (136)(figure 4A)(paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 9, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 7. The combination further teaches wherein the executable code comprises: manipulating the position of the diverter valve (Adams) from the first position to the second position when a pressure at the first pressure sensor reaches a predetermined value (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 8. The combination further teaches wherein the executable code comprises: manipulating the position of the diverter valve (Adams) from the first position to the second position when a pressure at the first pressure sensor reaches a predetermined value (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Weston teaches method of controlling a negative-pressure wound therapy system with a computer (paragraph [0045]), comprising:
manipulating, at a computer, a position of a diverter valve between a first position and a second position (paragraph [0059]); wherein:
the diverter valve is coupled between an outlet of a negative-pressure source and a dressing, the diverter valve is configured to allow fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to atmosphere when the diverter valve is in the first position (paragraph [0059], and the diverter valve is configured to prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to the dressing when the diverter valve is in the first position (paragraph [0059].
However Weston fails to teach wherein the valve is a diverter valve. Adams teaches a Vacuum Wound Dressing wherein the pump circuit contains a diverter valve (paragraph [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Weston so the valve is a diverter valve so that multiple positions of the valve may be utilized such as allowing flow to provide irrigation fluid to the wound ( as motivated by Adams, (paragraph [0023])).
Regarding Claim 12, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein: the diverter valve is configured to allow fluid flow from the outlet of the negative- pressure source to the dressing when the diverter valve is in the second position (Adams, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 13, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein: the diverter valve is configured to prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative- pressure source to atmosphere when the diverter valve is in the second position (Adams, paragraph [0023])
Regarding Claim 14, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein the executable code comprises: cycling the position of the diverter valve (Adams, 254) between the first position and the second position (Weston, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding Claim 15, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 11. Though the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the executable code comprises: manipulating the position of the diverter valve to hold the position of the diverter valve in an intermediate position; wherein the diverter valve is configured to allow a low flow of fluid between the outlet of the negative-pressure source and the dressing when the diverter valve is in the intermediate position, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Diverter valves are widely known in the art to have a middle position allow the flow of water from the valve inlet to be directed to either of two outlets, or through both at the same time. So even though this is not disclosed by Adams, this intermediate position is considered implied by the classification of the diverter valve.
Regarding Claim 16, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 11. Weston further teaches wherein:
the negative-pressure source (126) further comprises an inlet (figure 4A);
the inlet of the negative-pressure source is configured for fluid communication with the dressing via a first conduit (166) (figure 4A); and
the outlet of the negative-pressure source is configured for fluid communication with the dressing via a second conduit (136)(figure 4A) (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 17, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 16. Weston further teaches wherein: a first pressure sensor (165) is fluidly coupled to the first conduit (166)(figure 4A)(paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 18, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 16. Weston further teaches wherein: a second pressure sensor (137) is fluidly coupled to the second conduit (136)(figure 4A)(paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 19, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 17. The combination further teaches wherein the executable code comprises: manipulating the position of the diverter valve (Adams) from the first position to the second position when a pressure at the first pressure sensor reaches a predetermined value (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 20, Weston in view of Adams teaches the method of claim 18. The combination further teaches wherein the executable code comprises: manipulating the position of the diverter valve (Adams) from the first position to the second position when a pressure at the first pressure sensor reaches a predetermined value (paragraph [0045]).
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weston (US 20100298792 A1) in view of Adams (US 20060100594 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Weston in view of Adams teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 2. Weston and Adams fail to each wherein the executable code comprises: the diverter valve is configured to prevent fluid flow from the outlet of the negative pressure source to the atmosphere when the diverter valve is in the second position;
The diverter valve is configured to allow fluid flow from the outlet of the negative pressure source to the dressing when the diverter valve is in the second position; and
the fluid flow from the outlet of the negative-pressure source to the dressing is configured to clear blockages.
In the same field of endeavor Locke teaches when the processing unit 26 detects a blockage within the fluid communication path by any reliable blockage detection method, the processing unit 26 signals the valve 18 to open for a selected amount of time (e.g. 1 second) to vent the reduced pressure from the fluid communication path to atmosphere (paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weston in view of Adams to have the diverter valve set fluid out to the atmosphere and prevent blockage similar to Locke.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights