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 § 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. Sarangapani also does not teach production of oxygen within the housing of the patch. Tsaur et al. teaches another gas generating device particularly including an embodiment (Fig. 7) for wound care in which oxygen or hydrogen (paragraph 83) is produced for therapeutic purposes. Tsaur teaches that this provides a convenient means of applying oxygen or hydrogen gas therapy (paragraphs 37-38). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide the oxygen of Sarangapani from within the patch as taught by Tsaur for the convenience of the patient.
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) 6-7, 9 and 21-22 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 U.S. Patent 5,855,570 to Scherson et al. (Scherson).
Regarding claims 6 and 21-22, 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. Scherson teaches provision of oxygen to a wound via generation with a cathode, anode and electrolyte (col. 2, ln. 30-44), wherein the electrolyte may be provided in a reservoir (discussed at col. 3, lines 52-67). Scherson teaches that this provides an alternative means of generating oxygen for therapeutic use at a wound site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use the anode, cathode, and electrolyte reservoir of Scherson with the patch of Sarangapani as modified in view of Das as the mere substitution of one known oxygen generation means for another according to known methods of construction and operation. Since the application is the same, one of ordinary skill in the art would further have had a reasonable expectation of success in performing the substitution.
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of an oxygen generating subsystem configured as claimed and comprising NiOOH that is configured to periodically generate hydrogen instead of oxygen are not shown in or fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Applicant’s arguments regarding hindsight and non-analogy of Murphy are persuasive in light of the new limitations in claim 8 (i.e. those from amended claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 19 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 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 Sarangapani in view of Das (citing further teachings of Das), as well as Scherson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 14 September 2026
Prosecution Insights