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 .
In light of the amendments filed 01/23/2026 in which claims 1, 5, and 14 were amended, claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 25, 28-29, 31, 36, 38-39, and 41 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on 01/23/2026 and 02/10/2026 have been entered.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/IB2021/060595 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application no. 63/122,341 filed on 12/07/2020.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20, 25, 28-29, 31, 36, 38-39, and 41 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 12/07/2020.
Response to Arguments
Rejections to the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 01/23/2026.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or wherein the claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant asserts on pg. 7-8 that the prior art to Wang and Ambrosio fail to disclose the primary manifold formed of a non-foam gel elastomer material.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that Wang and Ambrosio were not utilized in the previous Office Action filed 12/04/2025 to read on said limitation.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection as explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “where the primary manifold is non-porous” in ln. 1. MPEP 2173.05(i) states, “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure…The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).” There is provided in the specification no explicit structure or provision that the primary manifold is non-porous. Further, the claim itself seems to read away from this in that the primary manifold comprises “a plurality of manifold openings through the top surface and the bottom surface”, which may be considered pores.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the primary manifold is non-porous and further comprises a plurality of manifold openings through the top surface and the bottom surface” in ln. 1-3. This limitation is indefinite in that it is unclear how the manifold is non-porous and comprises openings through its surfaces. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner is treating the claim as though these are alternatives (non-porous vs. comprising manifold openings).
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.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 1 of Wang Fig. 5
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US/2017/0196735 A1 to Wang in view of US/2011/0270301 A1 to Cornet.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an apparatus for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (para. 0014; para. 0037), the apparatus comprising: a primary manifold (Fig. 5, primary manifold 112) configured to move between a retracted state and an extended state (Fig. 5 showing primary manifold 112 in retracted state; Fig. 17 showing primary manifold 112 in extended state), the primary manifold comprising:
a top surface and a bottom surface positioned opposite the top surface and configured to face toward the tissue site (Ex. Fig. 1 showing top and bottom surface of primary manifold 112 opposite one another; Fig. 8(1) showing bottom surface of primary manifold 112 facing toward tissue site 50), and
a pleat positioned adjacent to an extension zone (Ex. Fig. 1 showing pleats adjacent to extension zones), wherein the extension zone is configured to extend outward from the bottom surface toward the tissue site when the primary manifold is in the extended state (Fig. 17 showing extension zones extending downward to tissue site 50 in extended state).
Wang differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wang fails to disclose wherein the primary manifold is formed of a non-foam gel elastomer material.
Cornet teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 1) comprising a manifold formed of a porous elastomeric gel material (para. 0022, manifold 144 may be a gel including or cured to include flow channels; para. 0024, suitable materials for manifold 144; para. 0025, elastomeric, pliable, and gel materials are preferred for soft-tissue application), the material being preferred for soft-tissue applications (para. 0025).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the primary manifold of Wang to be formed from a material as taught by Cornet, because Cornet teaches that elastomeric, pliable, and gel materials are preferred for soft-tissue applications (para. 0025).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein the bottom surface of the primary manifold is configured to form a convex shape in conformity with the tissue site when the primary manifold is in the extended state (Fig. 17 showing bottom surface of primary manifold 112 forming a convex shape in conformity with tissue site 50 in the extended state).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein the pleat comprises a fold in the material of the primary manifold (Ex. Fig. 1 showing pleats as folds in primary manifold 112).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein a cross-section of the pleat comprises a fold between a first portion of the primary manifold and a second portion of the primary manifold (Ex. Fig. 1 showing pleat formed as fold between first and second portions of primary manifold 112), wherein at least a portion of the first portion is configured to overlap the second portion when the primary manifold is in the retracted state (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first portion overlapping second portion horizontally in the retracted state), and wherein at least a portion of the first portion is configured to move away from the second portion in the extended state (Fig. 17 showing extended state wherein primary manifold 112 is largely flat such that the first and second portion of the pleats have moved away from each other).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 6. Wang further discloses: wherein the second portion of the primary manifold is positioned between the first portion of the primary manifold and the extension zone (Ex. Fig. 1 showing second portion positioned between first portion and extension zone of primary manifold 112).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein the pleat is positioned around the extension zone (Ex. Fig. 1 showing pleats positioned around extension zones).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein the pleat comprises a plurality of pleats, wherein the extension zone comprises a plurality of extension zones, and wherein one of the extension zones is positioned between two of the pleats across the top surface and the bottom surface of the primary manifold (Ex. Fig. 1 showing plurality of pleats and extension zones such that at least one of the extension zones is positioned between two pleats across the top and bottom surface of primary manifold 112).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein the pleat comprises a plurality of pleats, wherein the extension zone comprises a plurality of extension zones, and wherein the plurality of pleats and the plurality of extension zones are positioned in alternating concentric rings on the top surface and the bottom surface of the primary manifold (Ex. Fig. 1 showing plurality of pleats and plurality of extension zones in alternating arrangement along top and bottom surface of primary manifold 112; Fig. 4 showing concentric rings in drape 11a and primary manifold 112).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: wherein the pleat comprises a plurality of pleats, wherein the extension zone comprises a plurality of extension zones, and wherein one or more of the extension zones extends outward from the bottom surface of the primary manifold farther than another of the extension zones when the primary manifold is in the extended state (Ex. Fig. 1 showing plurality of pleats and plurality of extension zones; Fig. 17 showing extended state of primary manifold 112 in a substantially flat condition such that extension zones further out from the middle extend less than extension zones closer to the middle).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wang further discloses: a plurality of manifold openings through the top surface and the bottom surface, wherein the manifold openings are configured to provide fluid communication through the top surface and the bottom surface of the primary manifold (para. 0043, windows 113 may be areas where primary manifold 112 may not be foamed, chemically etched, or formed through sandblasting; Fig. 11-12, windows 112 in primary manifold 112; para. 0040 ln. 9-13, gaps in the foam of primary manifold 112 are used to drain liquid).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1 (the apparatus of claim 1). Wang further discloses: a system for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (Fig. 3; para. 0037), comprising: the apparatus of the invention;
a drape configured to be positioned over at least a portion of the apparatus and seal to tissue adjacent to the tissue site to form a sealed environment (Fig. 5, drape 11a positioned over primary manifold 112; para. 0037, adhesive layer 12 on drape 11a adheres to normal skin 80 to form an airtight seal); and
a negative-pressure source configured to provide negative pressure to the sealed environment (para. 0014; para. 0037; Fig. 3, pressure source 40).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1 (the apparatus of claim 1). Wang further discloses: a method of treating a tissue site with negative pressure (para. 0037), the method comprising:
positioning the apparatus of the invention proximate to the tissue site (para. 0047);
applying negative pressure to a sealed environment at the tissue site including the apparatus (para. 0047); and
extending one or more extension zones outward from the bottom surface of the primary manifold toward the tissue site (para. 0047; Fig. 17 showing extended state).
Regarding claim 25, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 14. Wang further discloses: wherein the manifold openings are windows further configured to provide a visual perception of the tissue site through the top surface and the bottom surface of the primary manifold (para. 0043, windows 113 may be areas where primary manifold 112 may not be foamed, chemically etched, or formed through sandblasting; Fig. 11-12, 113 windows in primary manifold 112).
Claims 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Cornet as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Patent no. 8,057,447 B2 to Olson.
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the primary manifold further comprises a plurality of standoffs extending outward from one or both of the top surface and the bottom surface.
Olson teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 1-2) comprising a primary manifold that comprises a plurality of standoffs extending outward from one or both of the top surface and the bottom surface (col. 4 ln. 12-67 and col. 5 ln. 1-8; Fig. 2, distribution manifold 15 comprising backing substrate 41 and plurality of protrusions 51), the stand-offs acting as a barrier to new tissue growth entering pores of the manifold (col. 5 ln. 4-8, 35-47).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the manifold of the prior art to further comprise standoffs as taught by Olson, because Olson teaches that the substrate comprising protrusions may serve as a barrier to new tissue growth entering pores of the manifold (col. 5 ln. 4-8, 35-47) to avoid the attachment of a manifold to a tissue site which may cause tearing of new tissue during removal (col. 1 ln. 51-59).
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 25. Wang further discloses: wherein the primary manifold includes a plurality of areas that define the windows that may have any configuration (para. 0043); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the primary manifold further comprises a plurality of standoffs extending outward from one or both of the top surface and the bottom surface, wherein the primary manifold includes a plurality of primary nodes and a plurality of links that are interconnected to define the windows, and wherein each of the primary nodes comprises at least one of the standoffs.
Olson teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system comprising a substrate comprising protrusions attached to the bottom of a manifold (col. 4 ln. 12-67 and col. 5 ln. 1-8; Fig. 2, distribution manifold 15 comprising backing substrate 41 and plurality of protrusions 51), the protrusions acting as a barrier to new tissue growth entering pores of the manifold (col. 5 ln. 4-8, 35-47).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the manifold of the prior art to further comprise standoffs at least each of a primary node as taught by Olson, because Wang discloses that the primary manifold may be provided in any configuration (para. 0043) and that Olson teaches that the substrate comprising protrusions may serve as a barrier to new tissue growth entering pores of the manifold (col. 5 ln. 4-8, 35-47) to avoid the attachment of a manifold to a tissue site which may cause tearing of new tissue during removal (col. 1 ln. 51-59).
Claims 17, 29, 31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Cornet as applied above, and further in view of WO/2018/226650 A1 to Locke.
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose a first polymer film and a second polymer film, the first polymer film positioned adjacent to the bottom surface of the primary manifold and the second polymer film positioned adjacent to the top surface of the primary manifold, wherein at least the first polymer film includes a plurality of fluid passages.
Locke teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 2; Fig. 4) comprising a first polymer film (Fig. 4, first polymer film 410; para. 0062) and a second polymer film (Fig. 4, second polymer film 405; para. 0062), the first polymer film positioned adjacent to the bottom surface of the primary manifold (Fig. 4 showing first polymer film 410 positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of manifold 215) and the second polymer film positioned adjacent to the top surface of the primary manifold (Fig. 4 showing second polymer film 405 positioned adjacent to a top surface of manifold 215), wherein at least the first polymer film includes a plurality of fluid passages (Fig. 4 showing first and second polymer films 410/405 comprising fluid passages 220; para. 0051) the first and second polymer films providing control of fluid flow through the fluid passages (para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0062-0063).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the primary manifold of the prior art to comprise first and second polymer films as taught by Locke, because Locke teaches that the polymer layers provide means for controlling or managing fluid flow through fluid restrictions (para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0063).
Regarding claim 29, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose a polymer film adjacent to the bottom surface of the primary manifold, the polymer film including a plurality of fluid passages.
Locke teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 2; Fig. 4) comprising a polymer film (Fig. 4, polymer film 410; para. 0062), the polymer film positioned adjacent to the bottom surface of the primary manifold (Fig. 4 showing polymer film 410 positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of manifold 215), the polymer film includes a plurality of fluid passages (Fig. 4 showing polymer film 410 comprising fluid passages 220; para. 0051) the first and second polymer films providing control of fluid flow through fluid restrictions (para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0062-0063).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the primary manifold of the prior art to comprise a polymer film as taught by Locke, because Locke teaches that the polymer layer provides means for controlling or managing fluid flow through fluid restrictions (para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0063).
Regarding claim 31, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 17; however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose wherein the first polymer film has a first thickness; the second polymer film has a second thickness; and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the prior art to have the first polymer film with a greater thickness than the second polymer film 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). In the instant case, the combined device of the prior art would not operate differently with the claimed thickness and since the plurality of fluid passages are meant to pass through the entire thickness of the polymer films the device would function appropriately having the claimed thickness. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the proportion claimed, indicating simply that the thickness “may” be different (specification pp. [00189]).
Regarding claim 36, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 17. Locke further discloses: wherein the plurality of fluid passages comprise a plurality of slots or slits, each of the slots or slits having a length less than 4 millimeters and a width less than 1 millimeters (para. 0052 ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the fluid passages of the prior art from between less than 4 mm to less than 5 mm and from between less than 1 mm to less than 2 mm, respectively, 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). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0098] indicating the length and width “may” be within the claimed range).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Cornet as applied above, and further in view of US/2011/0054422 A1 to Locke.
Regarding claim 38, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 18; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose a secondary manifold configured to be positioned adjacent the apparatus opposite the tissue site.
Locke teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 1) comprising a first and second manifold wherein the second manifold is configured to be positioned adjacent the first manifold opposite the tissue site (Fig. 4, dressing comprising first manifold 130 and second manifold 162 positioned adjacent first manifold 130 opposite the tissue site at the bottom of the Fig.; para. 0032, second manifold 162 may be formed from superabsorbent polymers or other materials suited for retaining fluid), the second manifold storing and maintaining fluids to provide increased fluid in the wound treatment site for facilitations of epidermic replenishment (para. 0015; para. 0032).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the prior art to further comprise a secondary manifold as taught by Locke, because Locke teaches that the second manifold of their invention is an absorbent layer that functions primarily to store and maintain fluids (para. 0032), and that increased fluid in a wound treatment site creates a moist wound environment that may speed or otherwise facilitate the migration of keratinocytes towards each other from the wound edges to replenish the epidermis (para. 0015).
Claim 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Cornet, and Locke as applied above, and further in view of WO/2018/226650 A1 to Locke (hereinafter referred to as Locke ‘650).
Regarding claim 39, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 38; however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose a first polymer film positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of the primary manifold and a second polymer film positioned adjacent to a top surface of the primary manifold, wherein the first polymer film is configured to be positioned adjacent to the tissue site, and wherein the secondary manifold is configured to be positioned adjacent to the second polymer film.
Locke ‘650 teaches a dressing for a negative pressure wound therapy system (Fig. 2; Fig. 4) comprising a first polymer film positioned adjacent to the bottom surface of the primary manifold (Fig. 4 showing first polymer film 410 positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of manifold 215; para. 0062) and a second polymer film positioned adjacent to the top surface of the primary manifold (Fig. 4 showing second polymer film 405 positioned adjacent to a top surface of manifold 215; para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0062-0063), the first and second polymer films providing control of fluid flow through fluid restrictions (para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0062-0063).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the primary manifold of the prior art to comprise first and second polymer films as taught by Locke ‘650, because Locke ‘650 teaches that the polymer layers provide means for controlling or managing fluid flow through fluid restrictions (para. 0051; para. 0058; para. 0063).
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the first polymer film is configured to be positioned adjacent to the tissue site…wherein the secondary manifold is configured to be positioned adjacent to the second polymer film”, the combined invention of the prior art would be considered to suggest these limitations in that Wang discloses the bottom surface of the primary manifold configured to be positioned adjacent to the tissue site (Ex. Fig. 1 showing top and bottom surface of primary manifold 112 opposite one another; Fig. 8(1) showing bottom surface of primary manifold 112 facing toward tissue site 50), Locke teaches the secondary manifold be positioned adjacent the primary manifold (Fig. 4, dressing comprising first manifold 130 and second manifold 162 positioned adjacent first manifold 130 opposite the tissue site at the bottom of the Fig.), and Locke ‘650 teaches the first polymer film positioned adjacent to the bottom surface of the primary manifold (Fig. 4 showing first polymer film 410 positioned adjacent to a bottom surface of manifold 215; para. 0062).
Regarding claim 41, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 39; however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose wherein the secondary manifold is configured to be positioned between the drape and the second polymer film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the secondary manifold of the prior art so it was positioned between the drape and the second polymer film since this claimed position of the manifold does not change the manifolds ability to absorb fluid. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the secondary manifold disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 19 March 2026