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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment as filed on 03-27-2023. As directed, claim 5 has been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-10 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air inlet of claim 1, the exhaust port of claim 1, and the inner cross drainage tube of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 1, it is suggested that a colon be added following “comprising”.
At claim 1, line 2, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “attached to” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 1, line 2, it is suggested that “the outer side” be replaced with “an outer side” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “the middle” be replaced with “a middle” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “the side surface” be replaced with “a side surface” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 1, line 3, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “in contact with” to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 1, line 4, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “provided” to both avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim and to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 1, line 7, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “communicated” to avoid recitation of method language in an apparatus claim.
At claim 1, lines 9-10, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “communicated” to avoid recitation of method language in an apparatus claim.
At claim 2, lines 4-5, it is suggested that “wherein the adherent dressing layer and the outer side of the chest wall are sealedly attached” be replaced with “wherein the adherent dressing layer is configured to be sealedly attached to the outer side of the chest wall” for clarity and to more explicitly avoid claiming the human organism.
At claim 3, line 4, it is suggested that “are communicated by” be replaced with “are configured to be in communication with” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 4, lines 2-3, it is suggested that “the length direction” be replaced with “a length direction” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 4, line 3, it is suggested that “is communicated with” be replaced with “is configured to be communicated with” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 4, line 4, it is suggested that “the other end” be replaced with “a second end” or “an opposite end” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 4, line 5, it is suggested that “far away” be replaced with “opposite” for clarity.
At claim 5, lines 2-3, it is suggested that “away from the outer side of the chest wall” be replaced with “configured to be positioned opposite the outer side of the chest wall” for clarity and to more explicitly avoid recitation of the human organism.
At claim 5, line 4, it is suggested that “the bottom” be replaced with “a bottom” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 5, line 4, it is suggested that “is embedded” be replaced with “is configured to be embedded” to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 5, line 4, it is suggested that “then” be deleted from the claim to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, line 2, it is suggested that “the bottom” be replaced with “a bottom” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 6, line 3, it is suggested that “the inner wall” be replaced with “an inner wall” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 6, line 4, it is suggested that “the circumferential direction” be replaced with “a circumferential direction” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 6, line 7, it is suggested that “as the center” be replaced with “at a center thereof” for clarity and because the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 6, line 7, it is suggested that “the upper part” be replaced with “an upper part” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 6, line 8, it is suggested that “is connected” be replaced with “is configured to be connected” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, line 9, it is suggested that “controls the movement” be replaced with “is configured to control a movement” as the limitation has not been introduced, and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, line 10, it is suggested that “after” be replaced with “when” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, line 11, it is suggested that “is abutted” be replaced with “is configured to be abutted” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in a device claim.
At claim 6, line 12, it is suggested that “the locking ends” ne replaced with “locking ends” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 6, line 12, it is suggested that “all rotate” be replaced with “are each configured to rotate” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, line 13, it is suggested that “all” be deleted for clarity, or replaced with “each of”.
At claim 6, lines 13-14, it is suggested that “are abutted” be replaced with “are configured to be abutted” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 6, line 14, it is suggested that “the opening” be replaced with “the open end” for consistency with claim 5, line 3.
At claim 7, line 3, it is suggested that “is communicated with” be replaced with “is configured to be communicated with” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 7, lines 3-4, it is suggested that “controls its suction or inflation state” be replaced with “is configured to control a suction or an inflation state of the annular airbag” to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim, and for clarity.
At claim 7, line 5, it is suggested that “after” be replaced with “when” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 7, line 6, it is suggested that “is sandwiched” be replaced with “is configured to be sandwiched” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 8, line 2, it is suggested that “two” be added before “locking structures” for consistency with claim 6, line 6.
At claim 8, line 3, it is suggested that “the other end” be replaced with “a second end” or “an opposite end” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 8, line 4, it is suggested that “is arranged” be replaced with “is configured to be arranged” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 8, line 4, it is suggested that “the middle” be replaced with “a middle” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 8, line 5, it is suggested that “is arranged” be replaced with “is configured to be arranged” in order to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 8, line 6, it is suggested that “is communicated with” be replaced with “is configured to be communicated with” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 9, line 2, it is suggested that “is rotatably arranged” be replaced with “is configured to be rotatably arranged” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 9, line 4, it is suggested that “the lower part” be replaced with “a lower part” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 9, line 6, it is suggested that “is fixedly wound” be replaced with “is configured to be fixedly wound” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 9, line 6, it is suggested that “the other end” be replaced with “a second end” or “an opposite end” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 9, line 6, it is suggested that “is communicated with” be replaced with “is configured to be communicated with” for clarity and to avoid positive recitation of active method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 9, line 7, it is suggested that “the locking rods” be replaced with “each of the locking rods” for clarity and consistency with claim 8, line 2.
At claim 10, line 4, it is suggested that “the eccentric position” be replaced with “an eccentric position” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 10, line 4, it is suggested that “the end” be replaced with “an end” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 10, line 5, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “slidably provided” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 10, line 5, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “fixedly” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 10, line 6, it is suggested that “freely penetrates” be replaced with “is configured to freely penetrate” to avoid recitation of method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 10, line 6, it is suggested that “the end” be replaced with “an end” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 10, line 8, it is suggested that “the end” be replaced with “an end” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 10, line 4, it is suggested that “the side” be replaced with “a side” as the limitation has not been introduced.
At claim 10, line 9, it is suggested that “away” be replaced with “opposite” for clarity.
At claim 10, line 9, it is suggested that “configured to be” be added before “communicated” to avoid recitation of method language in an apparatus claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A/the “locking structures in claim 5, which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 34 to include a locking rod hinged to the aspirator and a locking roller.
An/the “adjustable traction structure” in claim 5 which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 36 to include a wire take-up rod, two guide rings, and two traction wires.
A/the “suction adjustment mechanism” in claim 7 which is interpreted relative to the instant specification at paragraph 38 to include a sealed piston sleeve and a traction rod.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, lines 4-5 recite “the end portion of the branch flow guide groove portion” which renders the claim indefinite. This is because claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, outlines “a plurality of branch flow guide groove portions”, thus it is unclear which of the plurality of branch portions claim 4 refers to, and which end of one of the plurality of branch portions the claim refers to.
In order to overcome the rejection, it is suggested that the limitation be replaced with “an end portion of one of the plurality of branch flow guide groove portions”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navia (US 2014/0207027) in view of Olson (US 2010/0069858).
Regarding claim 1, Navia discloses a chest wall negative pressure support device (10) (paragraph 19, lines 1-11; Fig. 1), comprising:
a plastic support body (12+14) attached to the outer side of a chest wall in a sealed mode (paragraph 19, lines 6-11 for elements 12 and 14; paragraph 20, lines 1-8 for sealed mode on peri-wound dermis; paragraph 24, lines 16-24 for plastic material; paragraph 41, lines 1-6 for placement on chest; Figs. 1-2), wherein a flow guide groove (20) is formed in the middle of the side surface of the plastic support body (12+14) in contact with the outer side of the chest wall (paragraph 25, lines 5-6, note “open, concave channels” for “groove”; Figs. 1-2, where passageways 20 are located on the patient-contacting side of the device, and are disposed medially on device 10 relative to flange 32; again, note paragraph 41, lines 1-6 for chest placement and paragraph 20, lines 1-8 for sealing on the skin),
a negative pressure aspirator (“vacuum source”) is provided on the side surface of the plastic support body (12+14) away from the outer side of the chest wall (paragraph 23, lines 1-7 for connection of a vacuum to port 16, see also paragraph 61, lines 1-4 for the vacuum source; note in Fig. 1, port 16 is situated on the top/exterior side of the device opposite the interior/bottom patient contacting side),
an air inlet of the negative pressure aspirator (“vacuum source”) is communicated with the flow guide groove (20) by means of a negative pressure air outlet (16) formed in the plastic support body (12+14) (paragraph 23, lines 1-8 and paragraph 61, lines 1-6 for connection to a vacuum source; paragraph 25, lines 1-6 for communication of the vacuum source with the passageways 20 via the outlet 16, note that the vacuum source, by virtue of connection at port 16, includes an air inlet between this point of connection and the source of the vacuum in order to fulfill communication of the vacuum to the interior of the device).
Navia fails to explicitly disclose an exhaust port of the negative pressure aspirator is communicated with an exhaust pipe.
However, Olson teaches a reduced pressure treatment system (100) for communicating reduced pressure to a wound (paragraph 20, lines 1-4; Fig. 1), including a negative pressure aspirator (112+114) (paragraph 26, lines 1-8; Fig. 1), wherein the negative pressure aspirator (112+114) includes an air inlet (portion of conduit 112 near 116 and 114), and an exhaust port (portion of conduit 112 near 110) communicated with an exhaust pipe (112) (paragraph 26, lines 1-8; Fig. 1), wherein the exhaust pipe facilitates communication of the reduced pressure source (114) with the interior of the dressing (102) (paragraph 26, lines 1-8; paragraph 33, lines 1-12; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Navia to specifically include a negative pressure aspirator including an air inlet, an exhaust port, and an exhaust pipe, as taught by Olson, in order to reliably provide a pathway for providing the negative pressure source to an interior of the device.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navia (US 2014/0207027) in view of Olson (US 2010/0069858), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yin (CN 201088670), Locke (US 2017/0189236), Gross (US 5,549,584), and Lee (WO 2020/013674).
Examiner notes that the citations of each foreign reference are given relative to the translation appended in this Office action.
Regarding claim 2, Navia in view of Olson disclose the chest wall negative pressure support device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Navia further discloses wherein the plastic support body (12+14) comprises an adherent dressing layer (32) wherein the outer side of the chest wall are sealedly attached (paragraph 29, lines 1-8; paragraph 41, lines 1-6 for attachment to chest; Fig. 2).
Navia, alone or as modified, fails to disclose a first sponge cushion layer, a plastic metal mesh layer, a second sponge cushion layer, and a contactable adhesive film layer that are sequentially overlapped and fixedly connected.
However, Yin teaches a drainage device for use in open chest trauma circumstances (abstract, line 1; Fig. 1), that includes, sequentially, a first cushion layer (2), a second cushion layer (8), and a contactable adhesive film (1) located above each of the other layers that are sequentially overlapped and fixedly connected, for facilitating padding of the device on the chest, and providing a larger area layer to completely cover the open wound (page 2, lines 46-52, see “pressed together”; Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally provided first and second cushion layers and a contactable adhesive film to the device of modified Navia, as taught by Yin, is sequence with the adherent dressing layer, in order to provide padding to the device and provide a larger area cover layer over top of the remaining layers to completely cover the open wound.
Presently modified Navia fails to disclose wherein the first and second cushion layers are made of sponge, and a plastic metal mesh layer.
However, Locke teaches a non-adherent base layer (132) that allows for an adherent layer (136) to extend therethrough, wherein the base layer (132) includes a plastic (silicone) mesh (paragraph 66, lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a plastic mesh layer to the plastic support body of modified Navia, as taught by Locke, in order to provide a non-adherent layer in contact with the wound, while maintaining the ability for an adherent layer to extend through the mesh and stick to the underlying skin.
As modified, modified Navia fails to disclose wherein the first and second cushion layers are made of sponge, and the plastic mesh layer includes a metal.
However, Gross teaches wherein cushion layers of a wound treatment device can be made of sponge in order to retain wound exudate (Col. 7, lines 1-7, see gauze sponges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Navia to further include the cushion layers as sponge, as taught by Gross, in order to retain wound exudate.
As further modified, modified Navia fails to disclose wherein the plastic mesh layer includes a metal.
However, Lee teaches a wound dressing (abstract, lines 1-5) where the base layer (550) includes a metallic mesh (“The support member 550 includes, for example, a non-extensible mesh, and the material of the mesh preferably includes one of metal, nylon, and polyester”; Fig. 7).
Given that Locke contemplates a mesh coated with silicone (paragraph 66, lines 1-8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the underlying mesh material could reasonably be chosen to be metal, as taught by Lee, as a known mesh material used in the interfacing layer of a wound dressing.
Regarding claim 3, Navia in view of Olson, Yin, Locke, Gross, and Lee disclose the chest wall negative pressure support device according to claim 2, as discussed above.
Navia further discloses wherein the flow guide groove (20) comprises a strip-shaped main flow guide groove portion with one end communicated with the negative pressure air outlet (16) (paragraph 25, lines 1-8; see Fig. 2, where passageways 20, also described as open, concave channels, are shaped as long narrow, channels along their longitudinal aspects between open ends, and are thus considered to have strip-shaped portions), wherein both ends of each side of the strip-shaped main flow guide groove portion are communicated by a plurality of branch flow guide groove portions (22) (paragraph 26, lines 1-12; Fig. 2), and the plurality of branch flow guide groove portions (22) on each side of the strip-shaped main flow guide groove portion (channel portions in between openings of each passageway 20) are sequentially arranged at intervals outside the strip-shaped main flow guide groove portion (channel portions in between openings of each passageway 20) (paragraph 26, lines 1-12; see Fig. 2, where transverse channels 22 are arranged at intervals around the circumference of the device).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navia (US 2014/0207027) in view of Olson (US 2010/0069858), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bannister (US 2012/0143156).
Regarding claim 5, Navia in view of Olson disclose the chest wall negative pressure support device according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Navia fails to disclose wherein the side surface of the plastic support body away from the outer side of the chest wall is fixedly provided with a plastic fixing sleeve with an open end, and the bottom of the negative pressure aspirator is embedded in the plastic fixing sleeve and then fixed by an adjustable fastener connected between the negative pressure aspirator and the plastic fixing sleeve.
However, Olson further teaches both a negative pressure air outlet (see portion of 110 traversing aperture 111) (paragraph 33, lines 1-10; Fig. 1) and a plastic fixing sleeve (see the portion of 110 into which conduit 112 is inserted) with an open end (paragraph 33, lines 1-10; Fig. 10, and the bottom of the negative pressure aspirator (112+114, where the bottom is regarded as the portion of conduit 112 placed within 110) is embedded in the plastic fixing sleeve (see the portion of 110 into which conduit 112 is inserted) (paragraph 33, lines 1-10; Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Navia to further include a plastic fixing sleeve with an open end, and the bottom of the negative pressure aspirator is embedded in the plastic fixing sleeve, as taught by Olson, by providing an additional section of conduit attached to the exhaust port and extending from the side surface of the plastic support body away from the outer side of the chest wall, in order to provide a secure fit of the exhaust pipe with the treatment device that is angled away from the top side of the device to more easily facilitate connection between the exhaust pipe and the device.
Further modified Navia fails to disclose an adjustable fastener connected between the negative pressure aspirator and the plastic fixing sleeve.
However, Bannister further teaches a connection between a conduit (16) and a wound treatment device drape (11) (paragraph 46, lines 1-12; Fig. 1), which includes an adjustable fastener provided between interfacing components (claim 15, lines 1-5, where a threaded region includes several vertically oriented threads which allow for vertical adjustment of the two connecting pieces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the negative pressure aspirator and the plastic fixing sleeve found in modified Navia, to further include an adjustable fastener, as taught by Bannister, in order to facilitate a securely locked connection that can be adjusted over the threaded region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-10 are 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, given that Navia already details that the analogous strip-shaped main flow guide groove (see middle portion of 20) is a tube for delivering suction to the device (paragraph 25, lines 1-12; Fig. 2), it is not prima facie obvious to dispose an additional tube member within this channel as described by the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to anticipate and/or render obvious the combination of locking means for the bottom portion of the negative pressure aspirator detailed within the claim. As each of claims 7-10 depend from claim 6, these claims are deemed allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paradis (US 2016/0242992) is cited for its relevant device for treating flail chest (see Fig. 1 and the abstract), which coincides with the instantly disclosed invention.
Robinson (US 9,265,665) is cited for its relevant inflatable, off-loading dressing as described in the abstract and shown in Figure 5.
Klobe (US 2005/0119700) is cited for its relevant device that includes addition of negative pressure to the chest to treat funnel chest as detailed in paragraphs 50-58 and shown in Figures 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785