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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 March 2026 has been entered.
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 2007/0265560 to Soltani et al (Soltani).
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. Soltani teaches another therapy system (10) generally, and particularly teaches applying ultrasonic energy to an infused fluid prior to its delivery at the therapeutic site (paragraph 124) in order to generate microbubbles which operate to break up undesired material (paragraph 5) at a therapeutic site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide an ultrasonic bubble generator as taught by Soltani to the debriding apparatus of Blott in order to break up undesirable material at the wound site for removal by the cleansing system.
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 5, Blott is silent to the particular size of the perforations. However, it has been held that where the difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art is merely the recitation of relative dimensions, a prima facie case of obviousness is present (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A). Since the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art relates to the relative size of the perforations, the examiner holds that this limitation is obvious over the applied references.
Regarding claim 6, Blott teaches a negative pressure source (18).
Regarding claim 7, Blott as modified in view of Soltani teaches a microbubble system for treating a tissue site including an ultrasonic gas bubble generator (as taught by Soltani). It would further have been obvious to provide an acoustic transducer as taught by Soltani (paragraph 43) 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. Additionally, Soltani teaches intermittent operation (see e.g. paragraph 140).
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). Blott as modified by Soltani teaches providing microbubbles as previously discussed, and Soltani teaches generating ultrasonic waves with an acoustic transducer to deform the microbubbles (paragraph 124) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 3 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blott in view of Soltani.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at 571-270-1744. 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 10 April 2026
Prosecution Insights