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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 08/18/2025 is acknowledged. The first traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited reference of USPUB 2017/0065459 A1 issued to Ragg does not teach the special technical feature shared by all three groups. Applicant states that -For example, Ragg does not teach or suggest an optically transparent multi-layer tape stack comprising at least 2 layers of tape. Instead, the Examiner merely describes Ragg as teaching a single layer compression bandage. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement Ragg teaches a multilayered tape. The multilayered tape comprises a transparent film, a psa adhesive, a first release liner and a second release liner [¶ 0032]. The film is vapor permeable and transparent. At ¶0048, Ragg teaches that the adhesives may be selected from the group of acrylates, polyacrylates, polyvinyl ethyl ethers, silicones, or others. At ¶ 0089, the instant reference teaches that the film layer may be made of a material selected from polymeric substance like polyethylene, polypropylene, polyurethane, polyether urethane, polyether polyurethane, polyester urethane, polyether-polyamide-copolymers, polyester, Nylon, polyvinyl chlorid polyacrylate, biopolymers and the respective fibres or films thereof. The film layer is equivalent to applicant’s backing layer.
At ¶ 0110, Raag describes Fig 1 (set forth below) which teaches the multilayered tape comprising: Layers of the compression film bandage composite: a film layer (A), a medical adhesive (B) which is preferably pressure-sensitive coated on at least a portion of one surface of the film layer, a first release liner (C) covering the adhesive, and optionally, a second release liner (D) reversibly adhered to the upper film side to serve as a carrier, and optionally, perforations (e1, e2) and tab means (e2) of one or both release liners to ease the longitudinal removal. Applicant’s claims are open ended yet require a backing and a psa. Ragg teaches at least these layers and meets the definition of Applicant’s “tape.”
Also, if the figure below is not enough to understand that the tape of Ragg is multilayered, at ¶ 0070-0072, the reference teaches that the compression film bandage can be applied like a conventional compression bandage by wrapping it helically around the target region, or in single circles, with some initial, lateral and terminal overlapping and with at least one closed final circle. The overlapped regions could also be considered multilayered. Applicant’s traversal is not found to be convincing.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s second traversal is that the MVTR disclosed is a different test method than Applicants MVTR test in the pending application follows the inverted cup method. The special technical feature in all three groups is the tape, not the resultant properties or the test methods used to measure MVTR. Therefore, the Office has reviewed Applicant's arguments and found them insufficient or not legally persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 04/17/23, the first two entries under the NPL’s are not visible in the text that has been sent in. Please resubmit if you would like them considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a 1 or 2) as being anticipated by USPUB 20010051178A1 issued to Blatchford et al.
Blatchford et al disclose at ¶¶ 0003, 0013, 0026, 0030-0036 and example 1; a medical dressing (10) having top and bottom surfaces comprising a substantially contact transparent backing (12); a first PSA exposed on the bottom surface of the dressing; and a second PSA exposed on the bottom surface of the dressing, wherein the second PSA comprises at least one bioactive agent and is substantially contact transparent. The adhesive coated film may advantageously transmit moisture vapor at a rate of at least 300 g/m²/24 hrs /37°C/100-10% RH using the inverted cup method [¶ 0026].
At ¶ 0030, the instant reference teaches that the psa can be an acrylate based adhesive.
At ¶ 0035, the instant reference teaches that the dressing 10 has a backing 12, a bottom surface 14 and a top surface 16. The bottom surface 14 of the dressing is that surface that is designed to face the patient when the dressing 10 is applied and is typically the surface of the dressing on which any pressure sensitive adhesives used to secure the dressings 10 are exposed. The backing 12 is preferably a polymeric film that is substantially contact transparent.
Blatchford et al. discloses in examples use of the same backing as in the present application, i.e. Tegaderm (TM) transparent dressings.
Blatchford et al discloses in combination all the features defined in claims 1, 4, and 5.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 20010051178A1 issued to Blatchford et al.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, where Applicant seeks that the tape of claim 1, wherein the tape has a % Transmission of visible light of 85%, a haze of less than 40%, and clarity of at least 50%; and wherein the optically transparent multi-layer tape stack comprising at least 2 layers of tape has a % Transmission of visible light of 80%, a haze of less than 70%, and clarity of at least 30%; it is the position of the Office that Blatchford et al. do not specifically teach percentage of visible light, haze or clarity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to optimize the percentage of visible light, haze or clarity used in the tape, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed percentages are critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the visible light, haze or clarity dependant on where the tape is placed. For example on top of an IV it could be more transparent, whereas simply covering a less infected wound may not need as much or any transparency.
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti R Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-3:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
Asp
Prosecution Insights