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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-3, 6-11, 23, 26-29, 31-33, 39-43, 46-47, and 54 in the reply filed on 10/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-14, 16-18, 21, 35-37, and 56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16-18, 21, 23, 26-29, 31-33, 35-37, 39-43, 46-47, and 54 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 23, 26-29, 31-33, 39-43, 46-47, and 54 are examined on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/16/2023 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 47 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 47, “a perimeter of the first sheet of polymeric film and the second sheet of polymeric film are sealed together” should read -- a perimeter of the first sheet of polymeric film and a perimeter of the second sheet of polymeric film are sealed together --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 28 and 31 is/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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “break-lines … are located substantially half way between the break-lines extending from substantially a center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially a perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer” which are indefinite. It is unclear if the claimed “center of the liquid-impermeable layer” and “perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer” same or different from the “center of the liquid-impermeable layer” and “perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer” introduced in claim 27. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- break-lines … are located substantially half way between the break-lines extending from substantially [[the center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially [[the perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer --.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the break-lines each comprise bubbles that have been permanently compressed to substantially flat” which are indefinite. The scope of the claimed limitation “break-lines each comprise bubbles” is unclear. According to claim 1, “each break-line is free of bubbles”. The limitation in claim 31 appears to contradict the limitation in claim 1. Claim 31 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as Examiner cannot make a proper comparison between the claim and the prior art due to 112(b) issued explained above.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 26-28, 32-33, 39-41, 43, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (US PGPUB 20210045927) in view of Melin (US PGPUB 20160144085).
Regarding claim 1, Locke discloses a tissue interface (a tissue interface 108: ¶0007-0008, 0044, 0073, and Fig. 2) for treating an abdominal tissue site (¶0007-0008), comprising:
at least one liquid-impermeable layer (a bubble manifold 202 comprises a film of liquid impermeable material: ¶0007-0008, 0074, and Figs. 2-3);
a plurality of bubbles disposed on at least a first surface of the liquid-impermeable layer (bubbles 210 disposed on at least an inner surface of a first sheet 502 of the layer 202: ¶0007-0008, 0010, 0073-0074, 0081-0082, and 0093; Figs. 2-3, 5, and 7).
Locke in the embodiment of Fig. 2 does not disclose a pattern of break-lines configured to separate the plurality of bubbles into a plurality of zones on at least the first surface, wherein each break-line is free of bubbles.
Locke in the embodiment of Fig. 20 further discloses the at least one liquid-impermeable layer 202 comprising break-lines (one or more fluid channels 1940 formed from portions of a first layer 2002 and a second layer 2004 that have been welded together: ¶0116) and wherein the break-lines are positioned on a surface of layer 202 (Fig. 20) for the benefit of enhancing the distribution of negative pressure from the negative-pressure source of the therapy system and enhancing fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site (¶0114).
Locke in the embodiment of Fig. 20 still does not disclose a pattern of break-lines configured to separate the plurality of bubbles into a plurality of zones on at least the first surface, wherein each break-line is free of bubbles.
In the same field of endeavor, negative pressure wound therapy, Melin discloses a fluid transport dressing 16 comprising a plurality of bubbles (a plurality of sealed chambers 28: ¶0065 and Fig. 2) positioned a surface of the dressing 16 and a plurality of break lines provided between the bubbles 28 (a plurality of fluid conduits 38: ¶0078; Figs. 3-4 and 6). Melin further discloses/suggests a pattern of break-lines configured to separate the plurality of bubbles into a plurality of zones (the sealed chambers 28 are arranged such that at least a plurality of the fluid conduits 38 extend from a periphery 40 of the fluid transport dressing 16 towards a centre 42: ¶0078; Figs. 3-4 and 6) and each break-line is free of bubbles (Figs. 3-4 and 6) for the benefits of spacing the bubbles evenly throughout the fluid transport dressing, assisting in transporting negative pressure, and assisting in preventing clogging (¶0022 and 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke in view of Melin by arranging break-lines to separate the plurality of bubbles into a plurality of zones on at least the first surface and having each break-line free of bubbles, in order to space the bubbles evenly throughout the tissue interface, assist in transporting negative pressure, assist in preventing clogging, and enhance fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site, as suggested in ¶0114 of Locke and ¶0022 and 0078 of Melin.
Regarding claim 2, Locke further discloses the bubbles within each zone are uniformly spaced forming a gap between adjacent bubbles (a distance/gap between each of the bubbles is between 1-3 mm: ¶0075), and each break-line is at least twice as wide as the gap (each break-line 1940 is between 2-15 cm in width: ¶0114; thus, each break-line is at least twice as wide as the gap).
Regarding claim 3, Locke further discloses at least some of the break-lines extend radially (¶0114).
Regarding claim 6, Locke further discloses the liquid-impermeable layer (202) further comprises a second surface opposite the first surface (an inner surface of a second sheet 504 of the layer 202: ¶0007-0008, 0010, 0073-0074, 0081-0082, and 0093; Figs. 2-3, 5, and 7); and the plurality of bubbles extend from both the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Locke/Melin further discloses the pattern of break lines are formed on the first surface in order to assist in transporting negative pressure, assist in preventing clogging, and enhance fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site (see the rejection of claim 1 above), but does not disclose the pattern of break lines are formed on the second surface.
From these teachings of Locke and Melin, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized/deduced that forming pattern of break lines on the second surface of the liquid impermeable layer yields the predictable result of enhancing fluid transport capability, assist in transporting negative pressure, and assist in preventing clogging along the second surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin by incorporating pattern of break lines on the second surface of the liquid impermeable layer, in order to enhance fluid transport capability, assist in transporting negative pressure, and assist in preventing clogging along the second surface, as suggested in ¶0114 of Locke and ¶0022 and 0078 of Melin.
Regarding claim 8, Locke further discloses the liquid-impermeable layer (108) further comprises a plurality of fenestrations positioned between the bubbles (apertures 212: ¶0073 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Locke further discloses the liquid-impermeable layer (202) comprises a first sheet of polymeric film (a first sheet/layer of polymeric film 502: ¶0082) and a second sheet of polymeric film (a second sheet/layer of polymeric film 504: ¶0082), wherein inner surfaces of each of the first sheet of polymeric film and the second sheet of polymeric film are sealed to each other (¶0081-0082).
Regarding claim 10, Locke further discloses the break-lines comprise welds attaching the first sheet of polymeric film to the second sheet of polymeric film (¶0116).
Regarding claim 26, Locke further discloses the break-lines (fluid channels 1940) do not cross or otherwise impede radial flow across the liquid-impermeable layer (¶0008 and 0114).
Regarding claim 27, Locke further discloses all of the break-lines (fluid channels 1940) extend radially (¶0008 and 0114).
Locke does not disclose the break-lines extending from substantially a center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially a perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer.
Melin further discloses/suggests the break-lines extending from substantially a center of the dressing to substantially a perimeter of the dressing (the sealed chambers 28 are arranged such that at least a plurality of the fluid conduits 38 extend from a periphery 40 of the fluid transport dressing 16 towards a centre 42: ¶0078; Figs. 3-4 and 6) for the benefits of spacing the bubbles evenly throughout the fluid transport dressing, assisting in transporting negative pressure, and assisting in preventing clogging (¶0022 and 0078).
Locke/Melin does not disclose the break-lines are spaced approximately 45 degrees apart; however, a spacing angle between break-lines is interpreted as a result-effective variable. A result-effective variable is a parameter which achieves a recognized result. These results are obtained by the determination of optimum or workable ranges of said variable through routine experimentation. A spacing angle between break-lines affects the distribution of negative pressure from the negative-pressure source as well as fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin by spacing break-lines extending from substantially a center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially a perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer 45 degree apart, in order to enhance the distribution of negative pressure from the negative-pressure source, enhance fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site, space the bubbles evenly throughout the tissue interface, assist in transporting negative pressure, and assist in preventing clogging, as suggested in as suggested in ¶0114 of Locke and ¶0022 and 0078 of Melin and as it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A & B)). Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that full break-lines may extend from substantially a center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially a perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer, and may be spaced approximately 45 degrees apart (¶0009 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 28, Locke in view of Melin discloses break-lines additionally extend at least half a distance from substantially the center to substantially the perimeter (break-lines extend from substantially the center to substantially the perimeter: see rejection of claim 27 above; thus, break-lines extend at least half a distance from the center to the perimeter).
Locke does not disclose break-lines located substantially half way between the break-lines extending from substantially a center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially a perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer.
Melin further discloses/suggests the break-lines located substantially half way between the break-lines extending from substantially a center of the liquid-impermeable layer to substantially a perimeter of the liquid-impermeable layer (see annotated Fig. 3 below) for the benefits of spacing the bubbles evenly throughout the fluid transport dressing, assisting in transporting negative pressure, and assisting in preventing clogging (¶0022 and 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin in view of Melin by arranging break-lines as claimed, in order to enhance the distribution of negative pressure from the negative-pressure source, enhance fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site, space the bubbles evenly throughout the tissue interface, assist in transporting negative pressure, and assist in preventing clogging, as suggested in as suggested in ¶0114 of Locke and ¶0022 and 0078 of Melin.
Regarding claim 32, Locke further discloses the break-lines each comprise portions of the first surface of the liquid-impermeable layer that are free of bubbles (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 33, Locke further discloses the bubbles each have a diameter or width of approximately 6.0-12.0 mm (the bubble 210 has a diameter between 0.5 mm and 10 mm: ¶0087; thus, the taught diameter range overlaps the claimed diameter range).
Locke also suggests that the bubbles have dimensions that depend on particular application of the bubble manifold 202 and the tissue interface 108 (¶0075). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin by having a diameter of each bubble as claimed, in order to establish an appropriate fluid removal gradient at a tissue site, as suggested in ¶0075 of Locke and since it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)).
Locke/Melin does not disclose the bubbles each have a height of approximately 9.0-10.0 mm; however, Locke also discloses/suggests that the bubbles have dimensions that depend on particular application of the bubble manifold 202 and the tissue interface 108 and the variations in size and shape of the bubbles in the bubble manifold 202 and the tissue interface 108 help to establish an appropriate fluid removal gradient at a tissue site (¶0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin by having a height of each bubble as claimed, in order to provide bubbles for a particular application of tissue interface and establish an appropriate fluid removal gradient at a tissue site, as suggested in ¶0075 of Locke and since it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)).
Regarding claim 39, Locke further discloses both the first surface and a second surface of the liquid-impermeable layer are configured to contact the abdominal tissue site (the tissue interface is configured to contact abdominal tissue site: ¶0007-0008; thus, both the first surface and a second surface of the liquid-impermeable layer of the tissue interface is also configured to contact abdominal tissue site).
Regarding claim 40, Locke further discloses the bubbles within each zone are substantially uniformly spaced forming a gap between adjacent bubbles (a distance/gap between each of the bubbles is between 1-3 mm: ¶0075), and each break-line is wider than the gap (each break-line 1940 is between 2-15 cm in width: ¶0114; thus, each break-line is wider than the gap).
Regarding claim 41, Locke further discloses each break-line has a width of approximately 6.0-24.0 mm which is wider than a gap between adjacent bubbles (each break-line 1940 is between 2-15 cm in width: ¶0114; thus, the taught width range overlaps the claimed width range and each break-line is wider than a gap between adjacent bubbles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin by having a width of each break-line as claimed, in order to enhance the distribution of negative pressure in the therapy system and enhance fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site, as suggested in ¶0114 of Locke and since it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)).
Regarding claim 43, Locke further discloses each of the plurality of bubbles comprises a hollow closed-cell (¶0081, 0085, 0093, and Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 47, Locke further discloses a perimeter of the first sheet of polymeric film and a perimeter the second sheet of polymeric film are sealed together (¶0097-0099 and Figs. 10-12), and bubble cavities within the plurality of bubbles are in fluid communication with each other (fluid communication via passageways 1024: ¶0097-0099 and Figs. 10-12).
Claim(s) 11 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (US PGPUB 20210045927) in view of Melin (US PGPUB 20160144085), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Locke (US PGPUB 20180021178).
Regarding claim 11, Locke further discloses the pattern of break-lines is configured to define one or more surface flow channels (¶0114), but Locke/Melin does not disclose a flow rate of approximately 166- 481 mL/minute.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Locke’178 discloses a reduced pressure wound treatment system comprising a dressing and pump assembly (Abstract and Fig. 1). Locke’178 further discloses/suggests a flow rate range for a reduced pressure wound treatment system is between 5-1200 mL/min (the taught flow rate range overlaps the claimed flow rate range: ¶0059). Locke’178 also discloses/suggests the flow rate range that enables application of reduced pressure treatment depending on the configuration of the reduced-pressure dressing, size of wound, and/or type of wound (¶0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin in view of Locke’178 by selecting a flow rate range as claimed, in order to enable application of reduced pressure treatment depending on the configuration of the reduced-pressure dressing, size of wound, and/or type of wound, as suggested in ¶0059 of Locke’178 and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 54, Locke further discloses the pattern of break-lines is configured to define one or more surface flow channels (¶0114), but Locke/Melin does not disclose a flow rate of approximately 24-500 mL/minute.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Locke’178 discloses a reduced pressure wound treatment system comprising a dressing and pump assembly (Abstract and Fig. 1). Locke’178 further discloses/suggests a flow rate range for a reduced pressure wound treatment system is between 5-1200 mL/min (the taught flow rate range overlaps the claimed flow rate range: ¶0059). Locke’178 also discloses/suggests the flow rate range that enables application of reduced pressure treatment depending on the configuration of the reduced-pressure dressing, size of wound, and/or type of wound (¶0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin in view of Locke’178 by selecting a flow rate range as claimed, in order to enable application of reduced pressure treatment depending on the configuration of the reduced-pressure dressing, size of wound, and/or type of wound, as suggested in ¶0059 of Locke’178 and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (US PGPUB 20210045927) in view of Melin (US PGPUB 20160144085), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eddy (US PGPUB 20180021178).
Regarding claim 23, Locke/Melin does not disclose at least two of the break- lines are circular or oval in shape and are disposed around a center of the liquid- impermeable layer, wherein the at least two break-lines are concentrically spaced apart approximately 60 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, wound dressing, Eddy discloses an attachment pad 300 comprising one or more fluid channels 332, a flange portion 330, and a central aperture 334 (¶0059 and Figs. 8-10). Eddy further discloses the one or more fluid channels 332 are circular in shape, are disposed around a center of the liquid impermeable layer, and are concentrically spaced apart for the benefit of facilitating flow of fluids from any point of the flange when applying suction (¶0059). Even though Eddy does not specifically disclose a distance the fluid channels 332 concentrically spaced apart, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the tissue interface of Locke as modified by Eddy to have a concentrically spaced distance between the at least two of the break-lines within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin in view of Eddy by making/having at least two of the break- lines circular in shape, disposed around a center of the liquid impermeable layer, and concentrically spaced apart approximately 60 mm, in order to facilitate flow of fluids from any point of the tissue interface, as suggested in ¶0059 of Eddy, as it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)), and as it also has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that at least two of the break-lines may be circular or oval in shape and may be disposed around the center of the liquid-impermeable layer, with the at least two break-lines concentrically spaced apart approximately 60 mm (¶0009 of Applicant’s published application).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (US PGPUB 20210045927) in view of Melin (US PGPUB 20160144085), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Robinson (US PGPUB 20220111138).
Regarding claim 29, Locke/Melin does not disclose the break-lines further comprise at least some break-lines extending substantially at an angle less than 90 degrees from a midpoint of each radially extending break-line.
However, Locke discloses/suggests having tissue interface comprising the break-lines for the benefit of enhancing the distribution of negative pressure from the negative-pressure source of the therapy system and enhancing fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site (¶0114). And Melin discloses/suggests the arrangement of break-lines on the tissue interface assist in preventing clogging and assist in transporting negative pressure (¶0022 and 0078).
In the same field of endeavor, negative pressure wound therapy, Robinson discloses a tissue interface 114 comprising a plurality of bubbles (interface sections 205: ¶0062) and break-lines configured to separate the plurality of bubbles (seams 210: ¶0062). Robinson further discloses/suggests at least some break-lines extending substantially at an angle less than 90 degrees from a midpoint of each radially extending break-line (see annotated Fig. 8 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin in view of Robinson by arranging at least some break-lines extending substantially at an angle less than 90 degrees from a midpoint of each radially extending break-line, in order to assist in transporting negative pressure, assist in preventing clogging, and enhance fluid removal capability of the tissue interface when applied to a tissue site, as suggested in ¶0114 of Locke and ¶0022 and 0078 of Melin. Further, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the claimed break-lines arrangement, indicating simply that the break-lines may further comprise at least some break-lines extending substantially at an angle less than 90 degrees from a midpoint of each radially-extending break-line (¶0009 of Applicant’s published application).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (US PGPUB 20210045927) in view of Melin (US PGPUB 20160144085), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Locke (US PGPUB 20120143114).
Regarding claim 40, Locke/Melin does not disclose each of the plurality of bubbles is solid.
In the same field of endeavor, negative pressure wound therapy, Locke’114 discloses a wound dressing 103 comprising a plurality of bubbles (a plurality of projections 112/212: ¶0033, 0046; Figs. 4A-B and 5-6). Locke’114 further discloses/suggests the plurality of bubbles is solid (¶0042 and 0048) for the benefit of providing local load points at the tissue site sufficient to create micro-strain at the tissue site for stimulating granulation formation when reduced pressure is applied (¶0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Locke/Melin in view Locke’114 by making each of the plurality of bubbles solid, in order to provide local load points at the tissue site sufficient to create micro-strain at the tissue site for stimulating granulation formation when reduced pressure is applied, as suggested in ¶0042 of Locke’114.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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, SARAH AL-HASHIMI can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781