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
Claims 10 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9 February 2026. Claims 10 and 20 are withdrawn as including subject matter (i.e. the debridement device) not present in the elected species.
Applicant's election with traverse of the election of species requirement is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that burden has not been established and many claims are generic. This is not found persuasive because at least the debridement device is a different class of treatment device than gas application. Incorporation of different classes of treatment device widens the search necessary significantly, and thus creates burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 11-12 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 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the controller”.
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) 1-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0228654 to Sarangapani et al. (Sarangapani hereinafter) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0001001 to Das et al. (Das).
Regarding claim 1, Sarangapani teaches a device for supplying oxygen including an outer housing (88, 114) with a user contact surface (114), and an oxygen generating subsystem (278) configured to electrochemically generate oxygen (paragraph 50, “electrochemical production of oxygen”) within a gas permeable structure (paragraph 55). Sarangapani does not teach protrusions. Das teaches another wound care device generally, and particularly teaches protrusions which enhance wound healing (paragraphs 10-11) via direct application of oxygen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide protrusions as taught by Das in order to enhance healing.
Regarding claim 2, Sarangapani teaches a liquid impermeable housing (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 3, Sarangapani teaches a housing which is at least partially gas permeable and liquid impermeable (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 4, Das teaches that the protrusions may be conical (paragraph 75) and have various sizes (paragraph 74). The examiner notes that it has been held that the mere recitation of a dimension is not patentable in the absence of evidence that the dimension is critical to the function of an apparatus (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A).
Regarding claim 5, Das teaches silicone protrusions for gas permeability (paragraph 66). It would have been obvious to form the user contact surface of Sarangapani from silicone as taught by Das for its advantageous oxygen permeability.
Regarding claim 11, Sarangapani teaches sensors (paragraph 58) and network communication with the controller (paragraph 67, “wired or wireless data communication with the microprocessor”).
Regarding claim 12, Sarangapani teaches an oxygen sensor (506) and temperature sensor (504).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarangapani in view of Das as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Separating hydrogen and oxygen evolution in alkaline water electrolysis using nickel hydroxide” by Chen et al. (Chen, copy attached herewith) and US Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0047634 to Murphy et al. (Murphy).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Sarangapani teaches a controller (56), power source (86), an anode (paragraph 50) and a cathode (paragraph 50). Sarangapani does not teach the use of electrolytes, and does not teach the use of NiOOH. Murphy, first, teaches the use of hydrogen gas in a therapeutic setting to offset damage from certain imaging technologies (paragraph 14). Chen, second, teaches that NiOOH in communication with an electrolyte reservoir (see e.g. “Water electrolysis investigation”, page 20) may be used to produce both oxygen and hydrogen (see “Discussion”, page 18) separately with high efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use a NiOOH and electrolyte system as taught by Chen to efficiently produce the oxygen required by Sarangapani and further to produce hydrogen for offset damage from imaging technologies or other sources of radiation as taught by Murphy.
Regarding claim 7, Sarangapani teaches channels (108) for the anode and cathode to receive power from the power source.
Regarding claim 9, Sarangapani teaches provision of 1-10 ml/hr of oxygen at approximately the cited conditions (Paragraph 8).
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 6 March 2026