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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed on 12/22/25 in this application after the 11/25/25 After Final Amendment; 10/21/25 final rejection; and the 12/22/25 Advisory Action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered with the filing of the 12/22/25 RCE.
Claims 30-32, 34, 36, 38, 40-46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 58-59, 62-64, and 67. remain pending in the present application with claims 1-29, 33, 35, 37, 39, 47, 49, 51-52, 54, 56-57, 59, 60-61, 65-66, and 68-69 presently canceled. Claims 30-32, 34, 36, 38, and 40 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 41 and 46 are amended. Claim 70 is new. Claims 41-46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 58-59, 62-64, 67 and 70 are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41 and 46, particularly with claim 41 requiring the lamination between layers, have necessitated a new grounds of rejection. Thus, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Robinson is now presented as the primary reference in rejecting the present claims, for disclosing a majority of the claimed invention, including the newly amended limitations of claim 41.
Hunt is introduced as a secondary reference teaching the limitations of new claim 70.
Thomas, Karami, Randolph, Goto, Hartwell’918, Shuler, Fabo, Lavender, Ueda, Edward, Hartwell’918, and Gallagher remain in the present rejection for disclosing and/or rendering obvious the remaining limitations of the 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 41, 55, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2015/0119831 A1), in view of Karami et al. (US 5,308,313 A), and Randolph et al. (US 2014/0276288 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Robinson teaches a dressing for a tissue site with negative pressure (system 102 in Fig. 1; Abstract), the dressing comprising:
a fluid control layer comprising passages (¶ 48 describes a wicking layer 176, wicking inherently requiring some form of passages for fluid to pass through);
and a manifold layer (assembly 144; Figs. 5 and 6 show absorbent layer 184 specifically) laminated to the fluid control layer (¶ 53 indicates that the fluid management assembly 144 may be pre-laminated);
a cover (sealing member 140) laminated to the manifold layer opposite the fluid control layer (via adhesive layer 136; also see ¶ 70); and
a sealing layer (base layer 132) adjacent to the fluid control layer (Fig. 4A shows how the ceiling layer 132 is below the assembly 144) comprising at least one aperture (¶ 30 describes apertures 160);
Robinson does not explicitly teach:
the sealing layer comprising at least one aperture sized such that a plurality of the fluid passages and a portion of the fluid control layer is exposed through the at least one aperture.
Karami teaches a vented wound dressing (dressing 10 in Figs. 1-3; Abstract) comprising a fluid control layer (sheet material 12), a sealing layer (adhesive layer 14) comprising apertures (non-adhesive areas 16) sized such that one or more of the fluid restrictions and a portion of the fluid control layer is exposed through at least one aperture (best seen in Fig. 1, slits 18 are exposed, along with portions of sheet material 12, through the apertures formed by non-adhesive areas 16).
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 device of Robinson to comprise the vented sheet layer (i.e. as the fluid controller) and to make the apertures in the sealing layer sized such that one or more of the fluid restrictions and a portion of the fluid control layer is exposed through, as taught by Karami. Doing so would be advantageous in providing venting means for providing controlled fluid flow (Col 2, lines 39-50) while also providing optimum manufacturing tolerances and would require less precise manufacturing equipment (Col. 7, lines 40-54).
The combination of Robinson in Karami still do not explicitly the aperture sized such that a plurality of the fluid restrictions are exposed therethrough.
Randolph teaches a negative pressure wound system (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising a layer with large apertures (cutouts 615 in Fig. 6A) which expose a plurality of smaller fluid restrictions (perforations 621; best seen in Fig. 6B).
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 layers of Robinson and Karami, including the sealing layer, to comprise the cutouts of Randolph. Doing so would be advantageous in enabling layers to conform to contoured body shapes (¶ 68 of Randolph).
Further, doing so would be within ordinary skill in the art as a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Also see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) which relates to Changes in Shape. Further, Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shape/size of the apertures (¶ 98 of Applicant’s specification only indicates the apertures “may” be sized to expose more than one fluid restriction).
Regarding claim 55, Robinson further teaches the manifold comprising a 3D textile structure (¶ 27 indicates foams and 3D textile’s being suitable absorbent manifold materials).
Regarding claim 58, Robinson teaches:
a first wicking layer (first wicking layer 176);
a second wicking layer (second wicking layer 180);
and an absorbent disposed between the first wicking layer and the second wicking layer (absorbent manifold 184; ¶’s 48-50).
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 device of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the wicking layers disposed around an absorbent, as taught by Robinson. Doing so would be advantageous in making the manifold efficient and resistant to blockages (¶ 48 of Robinson).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Shuler et al. (US 2017/0028113 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Karami further teaches the fluid control layer comprising a polymer film (Col. 7, lines 3-14).
As previously stated, 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 device of Robinson to comprise the vented sheet layer as taught by Karami. Doing so would be advantageous in providing venting means for providing controlled fluid flow (Col 2, lines 39-50) while also providing optimum manufacturing tolerances and would require less precise manufacturing equipment (Col. 7, lines 40-54).
The combination does not explicitly teach the polymer film being of polylactic acid, carboxymethyl cellulose, or polycaprolactone.
Shuler teaches a wound dressing (system 100 in Fig. 2; Abstract) comprising a perforated fluid control layer (layers 542 and 544 in Figs. 9A-9C) comprised of a polymer including polyurethane and polylactic acid (i.e. PLA; ¶ 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the fluid control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph out of PLA, as taught by Shuler, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. Here all elements of the claim are well known in the art of nasal dilator balloons. Modifying Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to have a fluid control layer made of PLA would not change the devise function of controlling fluid distribution in the wound dressing (¶ 67 of Shuler describes PLA and polyurethane both being suitable, biocompatible polymers that would reduce the risk of foreign body reactions of infections). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph out of PLA since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (US 2013/0296761 A1).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly disclose the fluid control layer comprising a film of xanthan gum mixed with at least one of collagen, oxidized regenerated cellulose, and alginate.
Goto teaches a laminate for wound dressings (Abstract; ¶s 2 and 6 specifically indicates use in wound dressings as a gel coated on a polymer support medium; ¶ 50 specifically indicates polyurethane as a carrier, the same material as the fluid control layer of Karami) comprising a polymeric compound using xanthan gum and collagen (¶ 99).
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 fluid control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise a film coating of xanthan gum and collagen, as taught by Goto, Doing so would be advantageous in promoting biocompatibility and comfort (¶ 29 of Goto describes the advantages of the polymeric compound).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly disclose the fluid control layer comprising a film of xanthan gum and citric acid mixed with at least one of collagen, oxidized regenerated cellulose, and alginate.
Goto teaches a laminate for wound dressings (Abstract; ¶s 2 and 6 specifically indicates use in wound dressings as a gel coated on a polymer support medium; ¶ 50 specifically indicates polyurethane as a carrier, the same material as the fluid control layer of Karami) comprising a polymeric compound using xanthan gum and collagen (¶ 99), as well as citric acid as an additive (¶’s 120, 127, and 128).
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 fluid control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise a film coating of xanthan gum, citric acid, and collagen, as taught by Goto, Doing so would be advantageous in promoting biocompatibility and comfort (¶ 29 of Goto describes the advantages of the polymeric compound; ¶’s 120 and 128 describe citric acid specifically as being a texture improver and a pH adjuster).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Donelli et al. (Biofilm-based Healthcare-associated Infections Volume II).
Regarding claim 45, Karami further teaches the fluid control layer comprising a polymer film (Col. 7, lines 3-14).
As previously stated, 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 device of Robinson to comprise the vented sheet layer as taught by Karami. Doing so would be advantageous in providing venting means for providing controlled fluid flow (Col 2, lines 39-50) while also providing optimum manufacturing tolerances and would require less precise manufacturing equipment (Col. 7, lines 40-54).
The combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the film co-polymerized with dialkylcarbamoylchloride.
Donelli teaches anti-microbial polymers for use in wound dressings (Page 103, starting under heading 4 Wound Dressings), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising dialkyl carbamoyl chloride incorporated as an antimicrobial substance (see last paragraph, right column on page 103 continuing on to the left column of page 104) and the forming of biocidal polymers through co-polymerizing antimicrobial molecules with a polymer (right column on Page 105, antimicrobial molecules including dialkyl carbamoyl chloride as set forth above).
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 fluid control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to be co-polymerized with dialkylcarbamoylchloride. Doing so would be advantageous in providing anti-microbial properties (see last paragraph, right column on page 103 continuing on to the left column of page 104 of Donelli).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of in view of Thomas et al. (US 2009/0082746 A1)
Regarding claim 46, Karami further teaches the fluid control layer comprising a polymer film (Col. 7, lines 3-14).
As previously stated, 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 device of Robinson to comprise the vented sheet layer as taught by Karami. Doing so explicitly comprise a film, and would be advantageous in providing venting means for providing controlled fluid flow (Col 2, lines 39-50) while also providing optimum manufacturing tolerances and would require less precise manufacturing equipment (Col. 7, lines 40-54).
The combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the passages comprising openings through the film that are configured to expand in response to a pressure gradient.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being the forming of slit
valves in polymer films, Thomas teaches a fenestrated polymer film (Fig. 3a; Abstract and ¶ 1)
using slits made in a polymer film (¶ 16 indicates slits; ¶ 11 indicates various polyolefin
polymers) as elastomeric valves that are normally closed, and are configured to expand in response to pressure gradient (¶s 9, 17, 27, 30, and 34 describe how the slits are in a closed position, and may open to allow unidirectional flow through a pressure differential).
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 passages of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to be formed as preferential valves as taught by Thomas. Doing so would thus comprise fluid restrictions that are elastomeric and configured to be responsive to a pressure gradient across the fluid control layer. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage in facilitating flow out of the wound and discouraging backflow (in the manner described in ¶s 7, 17, 27, 30, and 34 of Thomas).
Claims 48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of in view of Fabo et al. (US 2006/0228318 A1).
Regarding claim 48, Karami further teaches the fluid control layer comprising a polymer film (Col. 7, lines 3-14).
As previously stated, 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 device of Robinson to comprise the vented sheet layer as taught by Karami. Doing so would be advantageous in providing venting means for providing controlled fluid flow (Col 2, lines 39-50) while also providing optimum manufacturing tolerances and would require less precise manufacturing equipment (Col. 7, lines 40-54).
The combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the film coated with petrolatum gel having a viscosity of at least 10000 millipascal seconds and anti-microbial compounds.
Fabo teaches a skin bandage (Abstract; ¶ 26 indicates use with wound dressings), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a fenestrated layer (perforated layer 6) coated with petrolatum gel (¶ 39 indicates paraffin, which is synonymous with petrolatum) and anti-microbial compounds (¶ 39 also indicates additional antimicrobial preparations), with the coating composition having a viscosity of 20-80 Pascal seconds (or 20000 - 80000 millipascal; described in ¶ 40).
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 fluid control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the petrolatum coating with antimicrobial preparations of Fabo. Doing so would also comprise a viscosity of at least 10000 millipascal seconds. Doing so would be advantageous in regulating flow and reducing skin adherence, while also promoting wound healing (¶ 39 of Fabo).
Regarding claim 50, Karami further teaches the fluid control layer comprising a polymer film (Col. 7, lines 3-14).
As previously stated, 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 device of Robinson to comprise the vented sheet layer as taught by Karami. Doing so would be advantageous in providing venting means for providing controlled fluid flow (Col 2, lines 39-50) while also providing optimum manufacturing tolerances and would require less precise manufacturing equipment (Col. 7, lines 40-54).
The combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the film coated with petrolatum gel having a viscosity of at least 10000 millipascal seconds and anti-microbial compounds.
Fabo teaches a skin bandage (Abstract; ¶ 26 indicates use with wound dressings), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a fenestrated layer (perforated layer 6) coated with petrolatum gel (¶ 39 indicates paraffin, which is synonymous with petrolatum) and anti-microbial compounds (¶ 39 also indicates additional antimicrobial preparations), with the coating composition having a viscosity of 20-80 Pascal seconds (or 20000 - 80000 millipascal; described in ¶ 40).
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 fluid control layer of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the petrolatum coating with antimicrobial preparations of Fabo. Doing so would also comprise a viscosity of at least 10000 millipascal seconds. Doing so would be advantageous in regulating flow and reducing skin adherence, while also promoting wound healing (¶ 39 of Fabo).
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Lavender et al. (US 5,080,661 A).
Regarding claim 53, Robinson teaches the manifold comprising open-celled polyurethane (¶ 26).
The combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the polyurethane being felted; and having perforations through the foam.
Lavender teaches a wound dressing pad (dressing 10, Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising an absorbent foam manifold made of felted polyurethane (Col. 4, lines 3-27) and having perforations that the foam (Figs. 1-4 show the foam material having a series of small holes).
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 polyurethane manifold of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the polyurethane foam of Lavender. Doing so with thus comprise the manifold specifically being felted and comprising perforations through the foam. Doing so would be advantageous in increasing absorbency (Col. 4, lines 3-27 of Lavender).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. (US 2011/0160686 A1).
Regarding claim 59, Robinson further teaches the manifold layer comprises at least two sheets (wicking layer is 176 and 180).
The combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the least two sheets formed of sodium carboxymethylcellulose.
Ueda teaches a wound dressing (dressing 10 in Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising an absorbent manifold using sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as an absorbent material (¶ 92).
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 manifold of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the sodium carboxymethyl cellulose absorbent material, as taught by Ueda. Doing so would be advantageous in promoting wound cure and keeping the wound moist (¶ 92 of Ueda).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view Edward S. et al. (US 2010/0125233 A1), hereinafter Edward.
Regarding claim 62, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the manifold layer comprising polymer beads.
Edward teaches a reduced pressure wound dressing (treatment system 100, Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising a manifold using a plurality of spheres (¶ 33; ¶ 21 describes the only manifold materials being polyurethane or polyether, which are polymers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the foam manifold of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph that allows for the distribution of fluid and pressure, with the bead manifold of Edward since these structures perform the same function of serving as a wound dressing manifold. Simply substituting one manifold for another would yield the predicable result of distributing pressure (as ¶ 33 of Edwards indicate the spheres are “manifolding”). See MPEP 2143. Doing so would thus comprise a manifold comprising polymer beads.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 2010/0160876 A1), hereinafter Robinson’876.
Regarding claim 63, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the manifold comprises polymer projections.
Robinson’876 teaches a reduced pressure wound system (treatment system 100, Figs. 1-2; Abstract), comprising a manifold layer (manifold 112) having a plurality of polymer projections (projections 126; ¶ 35 indicates the manifold being formed of polymer).
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 manifold of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the polymer projections of Robinson’876. Doing so would thus comprise the manifold comprises polymer projections Doing so would be advantageous to create micro-strains in the wound (see Robinson’876, Abstract and ¶ 31; ¶s 3 and 25 indicates the device promotes faster healing and increased formation of granulation tissue).
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Hartwell (US 2011/0028918 A1), hereinafter Hartwell’918.
Regarding claim 64, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the manifold comprises an embossed polymer film.
Hartwell‘918 teaches a wound system (dressing 100, Figs. 1 and 4; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a manifold layer (absorbent layer 110) having an embossed polymer film (transmission layer 105 having columns 402; ¶ 39 indicates foam, which ¶ 36 indicates specifically PU foam which is a polymer).
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 manifold of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the embossed layer of Hartwell’918. Doing so would be advantageous to provide fluid transmission paths through the absorbent manifold (¶ 61 of Hartwell’918).
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Gallagher (US 4,173,046 A1).
Regarding claim 67, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly teach the foam having closed cells and perforations through the foam.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being absorbent foam manifolds, Gallagher teaches an absorbent pad (underpad 10, Figs. 1 and 3; Abstract), comprising a closed cell foam (top layer 18; Col. 2, lines 37-46) having perforations through the foam (openings 22).
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 manifold of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph to comprise the closed cell foam and perforations of Gallagher. Doing so would be advantageous provide good comfort and support while also allowing transportation of body fluids (Col. 2, lines 37-66).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson, Karami, and Randolph, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Hunt (US 2004/0030304 A1).
Regarding claim 70, the combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph does not explicitly disclose a portion of the fluid layer that overlaps and edge of the manifold is coupled to the cover to enclose the manifold layer between the cover and the fluid control layer.
Hunt teaches a negative pressure wound dressing (Figs. 1 and 3; Abstract) where a portion of a fluid control layer (elastomeric sheet 38) overlaps an edge of a manifold layer (upper foam layer 12) to enclose the manifold layer between the cover and the fluid control layer (can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3).
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 combination of Robinson, Karami, and Randolph such that a portion of the fluid control layer that overlaps and edge of the manifold is coupled to the cover to enclose the manifold layer between the cover and the fluid control layer, as taught by Hunt. Doing so would be advantageous when utilizing the wound on a skin surface and to accommodate appropriate size configurations (¶ 46 of Hunt) and in creating a seal around the wound (¶ 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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 E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781