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 .
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2010/0249733 to Blott et al. (Blott hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0055179 to Deem et al. (Deem) and US Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0180197 to Sverdlik et al. (Sverdlik).
Regarding claim 1, Blott teaches an apparatus for debriding a tissue site, comprising a dressing (2, 3) for placing on the tissue site (5). Blott does not teach the use of an ultrasonic bubble generator fluidly coupled to the dressing and configured to generate micro-bubbles and ultrasonic waves in a fluid delivered to the dressing. Deem teaches another method for treating tissue and in particular teaches that ultrasonic energy and microbubbles are useful in debriding processes (see e.g. 25). Additionally, Sverdlik teaches a means for utilizing particular frequencies of ultrasonic energy to create microbubbles (paragraph 129). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide an ultrasonic generator as taught by Deem and operating as taught by Sverdlik to the apparatus of Blott in order to improve the debriding process and patient response thereto.
Regarding claims 2, Blott teaches an ultraviolet light source for cleansing the fluid (paragraph 459).
Regarding claim 3, Blott teaches a manifold (8, 11) and a drape, (3).
Regarding claim 4, Blott teaches perforated foams (paragraph 424) with small apertures (i.e. felted, see applicant’s specification at paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 6, Blott teaches a negative pressure source (18).
Regarding claim 7, Blott as modified in view of Deem and Sverdlik teaches a microbubble system for treating a tissue site including an ultrasonic gas bubble generator (as taught by Deem). It would further have been obvious to provide an acoustic transducer as taught by Sverdlik in order to energize the bubbles prior to their application (see paragraph 129, “additional separate transducer”).
Regarding claims 8-9, Blott teaches an ultraviolet light source for cleansing the fluid (paragraph 459) disposed between the fluid source and the gas bubble generator.
Regarding claim 10, Blott teaches filtered effluent (see paragraph 760).
Regarding claim 11, the previously combined references teach the application of ultrasonic waves. The intermittent application of such pulses is a process of use limitation which does not confer any particular structure on the claimed invention and as such the examiner holds that this limitation is rendered obvious by the cited references.
Regarding claim 12, in the absence of evidence indicating criticality of the bubble size or of structure directed to producing that size, the examiner holds that this limitation is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Blott teaches saline and surfactants (paragraphs 429-430).
Regarding claim 14, Blott teaches supplying a fluid from a source (12) and delivering the fluid to a site (5). Deem teaches providing microbubbles as previously discussed, and Sverdlik teaches generating ultrasonic waves with an acoustic transducer to deform the microbubbles (paragraph 429) prior to their delivery.
Regarding claim 15, Blott teaches an ultraviolet light source for cleansing the fluid (paragraph 459).
Regarding claim 16, Blott teaches a dressing (2, 3), a coupling (6, 8), and delivery of fluid to the dressing (see e.g. Fig. 1 of Blott).
Regarding claim 17, Blott teaches a negative pressure source (18).
Regarding claims 18-20, absent evidence to the contrary, these method steps are considered to be inherent to the process of applying ultrasonic energy to the previously generated bubbles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571)272-4965. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 6 September 2025