Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/779,755

TISSUE INTERFACE FOR NEGATIVE-PRESSURE AND INSTILLATION THERAPY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 25, 2022
Examiner
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Kci Manufacturing Unlimited Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
704 granted / 1076 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
1119
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1076 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 October 2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 11-13 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. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingram et al. (2015/0320434). With respect to claim 1, Ingram discloses a dressing for treating a tissue site, as shown in figure 1, comprising a contact layer 110 having a plurality of pores, as disclosed in paragraph [0065], a first side and a second side configured to be positioned adjacent a tissue site 103, and further having a plurality of holes 140 extending through from the first side to the second side, as shown in figure 6 and disclosed in paragraph [0070]. The dressing further comprises a retainer layer 108 formed of a porous material, as disclosed in paragraph [0046] and coupled to the first side of the contact layer 110, as shown in figure 6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (2015/0320434) in view of Locke et al. (2016/0175156). With respect to claims 6 and 11, Ingram discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the dressing further comprising a second retainer layer coupled to the contact layer and the first side of the first retainer layer, and a polyurethane film layer having a plurality of perforations, a first adhesive on a first side, a second adhesive on the second side, and coupling the first retainer layer to the second retainer layer. Locke discloses a dressing comprising first retainer layer 120 and a second retainer layer 180 separated by a polyurethane film layer 178, as shown in figure 11 and disclosed in paragraph [0079]. The polyurethane film layer has a plurality of perforations, as disclosed in paragraph [0081], and is held in place by adhesive, as disclosed in paragraph [0079]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dressing of Ingram with a second retainer layer coupled to the first retainer layer by adhesive layers on a polyurethane film layer having a plurality of perforations, as taught by Locke, to achieve the predictable result of combining known elements to achieve the predictable result of controlling the flow of liquid from the wound through the dressing. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (2015/0320434) in view of Locke et al. (2016/0175156), and further in view of Gowans et al. (2019/0192350). With respect to claim 12, Ingram as modified by Locke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first adhesive having a higher bond strength than the second adhesive. Gowans discloses a dressing comprising retaining layers and a polyurethane film layer, and teaches providing different strength adhesives to help the dressing maintain its integrity, as disclosed in paragraph [0033]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first adhesive of modified Ingram having a higher bond strength than the second adhesive, as taught by Gowans, to help the dressing maintain its integrity. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram et al. (2015/0320434) in view of Locke et al. (2016/0175156), and further in view of Brooks et al. (3,683,921). With respect to claim 13, Ingram as modified by Locke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a plurality of bonds disposed between the first retainer layer and the second retainer layer coupling the first and second retainer layers. Brooks a dressing, as shown in figure 1, comprising first and second layers 12 and 18 with a film layer 14 comprising perforations therebetween. Brooks teaches that bonding the layers within the perforations, as disclosed in column 8, lines 1-3, improves the strength and resilience of the dressing, as disclosed in column 1, lines 61-67. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to bond the first and second retainer layers of modified Ingram, as taught by Brooks, to improve the strength and resilience of the dressing. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6. 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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. /CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 04, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 01, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594198
DISPOSABLE WEARING ARTICLE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582806
Female Catheter Guide
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575977
Composition for wet indicator
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575545
PET DIAPER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558273
BREATHABLE ABSORBENT ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+20.8%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1076 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month