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 without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Claims 1-9 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 2 recites “low viscosity adhesive low viscosity adhesive and/or a superabsorbent”, which should read “low viscosity adhesive and/or a superabsorbent”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In an effort to compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 6 recites “about” which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 3 recites “about” which renders the claim indefinite. The use of word “about” when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree. Terms of Degree: When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). The claim is not indefinite if the specification provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree even without a precise numerical measurement (e.g., a figure that provides a standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). During prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection by submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not. <Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / February 9, 2011 / Notices, (Page 7165: Col 3, Par. 0003)>.
Claims 6 and 9 recite “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In an effort to compact prosecution, the limitation is being interpreted as “or”
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al (US 20190060127 A1) in view of Igarashi et al (GB 2133374 A).
Regarding claim 1, Locke substantially teaches applicant’s claimed invention, and specifically discloses a device with every structural limitation of applicant’s claimed invention (except for the limitations shown in italics and grayed-out) including:
A dressing (figure 2, dressing 102 further illustrated in figure 6) comprising:
a cover (figure 2, film layer 126 having a side facing adhesive 124 and an opposite surface facing barrier layer 128) having a first side and a second side;
an adhesive layer (figure 6, adhesive layer 124) comprising a first adhesive ([0055]-[0057] adhesive material, for example acrylic adhesive, of the layer 124 coupled to film layer 126) coupled to at least part of the first side of the cover;
wherein microcapsules (figure 6, microcapsules 138 and 140) comprising a second adhesive encapsulated by a polymer ([009] microcapsules may be formed from synthetic polymers) are embedded in or present on a surface of the adhesive layer; and
a tissue (figure 2, tissue interface 108 being adjacent and coupled to adhesive layer 124) interface coupled to the adhesive layer.
Locke does not teach wherein the microcapsules comprising a second adhesive.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an adhesive-containing microcapsules, Igarashi teaches a component of adhesive encapsulated within a microcapsule membrane and the microcapsule being dispersed in a medium consisting of other component of the adhesive (abstract).
Therefore, 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 Locke, to incorporate the teachings of Igarashi and provide the adhesive layer and microcapsules as claimed for the purpose of providing enhanced bonding strength and superior wound sealing while overcoming disadvantages of conventional adhesives formulations that require mixing separate components prior to application, as taught by Igarashi (page 1), for example, evaporation and premature curing of the mixed adhesive due to delays in applying the dressing, resulting in diminished adhesive performance .
Regarding claim 2, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the cover is a film, such as a polyurethane film, polyether block amine copolymers (PEBAX) film, a polyamide film, a cellulose ester film, a hydroxyl and carboxyl containing acrylic film, and a polyvinyl alcohol film (Locke;[0067] the film layer formed from polyurethane)
Regarding claim 3, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the first adhesive comprises an acrylic adhesive, a polyurethane adhesive, a rubber-based adhesive, a hydrocolloid adhesive or a combination thereof (Locke; [0057] the adhesive layer 124 is an acrylic adhesive).
Regarding claim 7, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the polymer comprises PVOH, EVA, pyrrolidone ethylene and acetate co-polymers, ethylene-ethylene oxide co-polymers, a polyurethane, a gelatin, and a cellulose salt and ester (Locke; [00789-[0080], microcapsules formed from gelatin).
Regarding claim 8, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the microcapsules are capable of fracture upon movement (shear) or a force (compression) equal to or greater than 3N (Locke; [0079]-[0080] Locke teaches the microcapsules are made of same material of the application, i.e., gelatin, see application specification [0053] gelatin used to encapsulate the second adhesive, which inherently possess same properties, i.e., capable of fracture upon movement or a force equal to or greater than 3N).
In the alternative, in the event that this interpretation is not envisaged by applicant, 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 Locke, as modified by Igarashi, and provide the microcapsules as claimed for in order to enable the microcapsules to fracture and release the adhesive mixture upon application of adequate force by the operator.
Regarding claim 9, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the tissue interface comprises a manifold comprising open cell or, reticulated polyurethane foam (Locke; [0039] tissue interface 108 is reticulated polyurethane foam)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al (US 20190060127 A1) in view of Igarashi et al (GB 2133374 A), and in further view of Hoggarth et al (US 20200246192 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the second adhesive comprises a low viscosity adhesive and/or a superabsorbent.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a wound dressing, Hoggarth teaches an adhesive comprising combination of an acrylic-based adhesive and an adhesive gel such as a hydrogel ([0062]-[0064]).
Examiner’s note: hydrogel is considered a low viscosity adhesive as disclosed in the applicant’s specification ([0083] “In some embodiments, the released second adhesive may be of a very low viscosity nature such as a hydrogel”)
Therefore, 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 Locke, as modified by Igarashi, to incorporate the teachings of Hoggarth and provide the second adhesive as claimed for the purpose of providing suitable adherence in moist or wet conditions during fluctuations pressures as taught by Hoggarth ([0036] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the second adhesive comprises a hydrogel, a polyurethane gel or an acrylic gel.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a wound dressing, Hoggarth teaches wherein the second adhesive comprises a hydrogel, a polyurethane gel or an acrylic gel ([0062]-[0064] adhesive gel such as a hydrogel).
Therefore, 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 Locke, as modified by Igarashi, to incorporate the teachings of Hoggarth and provide the second adhesive as claimed for the purpose of providing suitable adherence in moist or wet conditions during fluctuations pressures as taught by Hoggarth ([0036] and [0064]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke et al (US 20190060127 A1) in view of Igarashi et al (GB 2133374 A), and in further view of Lorenz (US 5645855 A).
Regarding claim 6, Locke, as modified by Igarashi teaches the dressing of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the second adhesive comprises polyethylene glycol of about 400 to about 2500 g/mol, preferably about 600 to about 1500 g/mol.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an adhesive composition, Lorenz teaches wherein the second adhesive comprises polyethylene glycol of about 400 to about 2500 g/mol, or about 600 to about 1500 g/mol (col 3 lines 40-55, composition includes a plasticizer for example The polyethylene glycol may have a molecular weight of from about 100 to about 600).
Therefore, 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 Locke, as modified by Igarashi, to incorporate the teachings of Lorenz and provide the second adhesive as claimed for the purpose of preventing the adhesive from drying and providing enhanced tackiness as taught by Lorenz (col 3 lines 40-55).
Furthermore, although the combination does not expressly the polyethylene glycol having claimed ranges, i.e., 400-2500 g/mol or 600-1500 g/mol, 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 Locke, as modified by Igarashi and Lorenz, and provide the second adhesive as claimed as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0048] indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Richter et al (US 20220315812 A1) is disclosed as teaching an adhesive comprising microcapsules filled with an adhesive resin which relatively pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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.
/SETH HAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781