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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 03/04/2026 have been fully considered. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 16-17, 19, 22-23, 25, 29-31, and 50-51 are pending in this application. Claim 22 is amended. Claims 7-8, 12, 14-15, 18, 20-21, 24, 26-28, and 32-49 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13, 25, 27, and 29-31 are withdrawn. Claims 50-51 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 16 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.
Though overall some of the same prior art references are used herein, at least applicant’s request for continued examination, the amendment of claim 22, and the addition of newly added claims 50 and 51 required a change in the grounds of the rejection as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (Patent No. US 3,378,432 A) in view of Locke et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0353663 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Spencer teaches a foam layer (Abstract; Figures 7, 9 and 10) having a first side (layer has a first, top side of region K; Figure 7, 9, and 10), a second side (layer has a second, bottom side of region K; Figure 7, 9, and 10; Column 3, lines 11-23), and a first thickness from the first side to the second side (non-compressed region K has a first thickness from the first to the second side; Figure 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 31-55);
a plurality of blind apertures disposed in the first side (plurality of apertures 30 with thickness W on the first side; Figure 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 59-73), each of the blind apertures having a second thickness from the first side to the second side (each of apertures 30 has a second thickness W from the first side to the second side; Figure 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 59-73). Spencer does not teach a dressing for treating a tissue site, the dressing comprising a tissue interface having: the foam layer, and the tissue interface having a first density at the first thickness and a second density at the second thickness.
However, Locke teaches a dressing for treating a tissue site (dressing 104 to treat tissue site; Figure 2; Paragraph 0116), the dressing comprising a tissue interface having: the foam layer (tissue interface 114/210 made of foam; Paragraph 0116; Figure 1-2).
Spencer and Locke are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foam materials for articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Spencer to incorporate the teachings of Locke and have the foam layer of Spencer be the tissue interface of the wound dressing of Locke. This allows for a flexible and soft material to be in contact with the skin of the user (Locke; Paragraph 0116).
The combination of Spencer in view of Locke further teaches the tissue interface having a first density at the first thickness and a second density at the second thickness (Spencer; non-compressed region K having a first density at the first thickness and compressed apertures W having a second density at the second thickness that is greater than the first density because of the heated embossing method; Figures 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 31-55 and Column 6, lines 59-73).
Regarding claim 17, Spencer in view of Locke teaches the dressing of claim 16. The combination of Spencer in view of Locke further teaches wherein the second density is greater than the first density (Spencer; non-compressed region K having a first density at the first thickness and compressed apertures W having a second density at the second thickness that is greater than the first density because of the heated embossing method; Figures 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 31-55 and Column 6, lines 59-73).
Regarding claim 19, Spencer in view of Locke teaches the dressing of claim 16. The combination of Spencer in view of Locke further teaches wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness (Spencer; non-compressed region K having a first thickness and compressed apertures W having a second density at the second thickness that is less than a first thickness because of the heated embossing method; Figures 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 31-55 and Column 6, lines 59-73).
Regarding claim 22, Spencer in view of Locke teaches the dressing of claim 16. Spencer further teaches wherein each of the plurality of blind apertures comprises a perimeter at the first surface of the foam layer (edge of indentation/aperture 30 has a perimeter at the first, top surface of the foam layer; Figure 7, 9, and 10; Column 6, lines 31-58), and transition zones between the first thickness and the second thickness at the perimeter (curved edge of the aperture 30 between first thickness K and second thickness W is the transition zone and is located at perimeter; Figure 10).
Regarding claim 23, Spencer in view of Locke teaches the dressing of claim 22. The combination of Spencer in view of Locke does not expressly teach wherein the transition zones have a radius of curvature from about 3 mm to about 5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition zones have a radius of curvature from about 3 mm to about 5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04)(IV)(A). In the instant case, the dressing of Spencer in view of Locke would not operate differently with the claimed radius of curvature since it has the same function of absorbing the fluid from the wound site. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius of curvature is “about” within the claimed ranges (specification; paragraph 00102).
Regarding claim 50, Spencer in view of Locke teaches the dressing of claim 16. The combination of Spencer in view of Locke further teaches wherein the plurality of blind apertures form walls having a surface parallel to and coincident with the first surface of the foam layer (Spencer; walls of aperture 30 with width of W having a surface at the bottom of the aperture that is parallel to the first surface of the foam or top surface of region K; Figure 7, 9, and 10).
Regarding claim 51, Spencer in view of Locke teaches the dressing of claim 16. The combination of Spencer in view of Locke further teaches wherein a surface of the first side of the foam layer is continuous and separates each aperture of the plurality of blind apertures from adjacent blind apertures (Spencer; first, top side of region K of foam layer has a continuous surface that separates each aperture 30 from other apertures 30; Figures 7, 9, and 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights