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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0105822 A1 to Belson et al. (hereinafter “Belson”) in view of US 2016/0143638 A1 to Renke (hereinafter “Renke”) (both references previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Belson discloses (see abstract; Figs. 1-5; Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3 below; and [0011]-[0048] & [0086]-[0097]) a laminated stress dispersing device (see Figs. 1-3), comprising: a plurality of layers (14, 18, 26) of material laminated to form sections (see [0087]), the sections including: an attachment section forming a first zone; a common section forming a second zone; and a third zone (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3 below); wherein the first zone has a first stiffness, the second zone has a second stiffness and the third zone has a third stiffness, the first stiffness being greater than the second stiffness (by virtue of combining the stiffness of 26 to the stiffnesses of 14 and 18), and the second stiffness being greater than the third stiffness (by virtue of combining the stiffness of 18 to the stiffness of 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Belson further discloses (claim 2) wherein the attachment section includes at least one eyelet (defined within space between 26 and 18, see Fig. 2); (claim 8) wherein the first zone, the second zone and the third zone include a non-woven material (see [0016]/[0026]/[0039]/[0046]); (claim 21) wherein the first zone includes three layers of the plurality of layers, the second zone includes only two layers of the plurality of layers, and the third zone includes a single layer of the plurality of layers (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3 above); and (claim 22) wherein the first zone, the second zone and the third zone include different numbers of layers of the plurality of layers (see Examiner’s Diagram of Fig. 3 above).
Belson fails to specifically disclose, with respect to claim 1, wherein the third zone comprises a plurality of rays extending from the common section in different directions, the different directions being non-parallel with one another; and further fails to disclose (claim 3) wherein the plurality of rays include three rays; (claim 4) wherein the plurality of rays include four rays; (claim 5) wherein each of the plurality of rays has a same length; (claim 6) wherein the plurality of rays are evenly spaced apart; and (claim 7) wherein each of the plurality of rays is thirty degrees away from an adjacent ray.
Renke discloses (see abstract; Figs. 6A-7B; and [0068]-[0087]) a stress dispersing (see [0083]) device (Figs. 7A-C), comprising: an attachment section (19a) forming a first zone; a common section (18a) forming a second zone; and a plurality of rays (17a) extending from the common section in different directions and forming a third zone, the different directions being non-parallel with one another (see Figs. 7A-C and [0085]-[0087]); wherein the plurality of rays include three rays (see Fig. 7A and [0085]); wherein the plurality of rays include four rays (see Fig. 7A and [0085]); wherein each of the plurality of rays has a same length (see Fig. 7A and [0085]); wherein the plurality of rays are evenly spaced apart (see Fig. 7A and [0085]); and wherein each of the plurality of rays is thirty degrees away from an adjacent ray (see Fig. 7A and [0085], can have between 6 to 20 tabs to form a complete 360 degree circle about the device, if 12 tabs are present, than 360 degrees divided by 12 tabs would equal 30 degrees of separation) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of enhancing adhesion to the skin by being used to direct and vary forces of contraction by being arranged in a set pattern (see [0085]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Belson’s device with the rays taught by Renke in order to enhance adhesion to the skin by being used to direct and vary forces of contraction by being arranged in a set pattern.
The combination of Belson and Renke discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed, however, with respect to claims 9-11, the combination fails to specifically disclose wherein the first zone, and the second zone include polyethylene; wherein the first zone includes flashspun high-density polyethylene fibers; and wherein the first zone includes polyester. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the zones comprise the materials claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The use of polyethylene, including flashspun high-density polyethylene (such as the brand Tyvek as established by Applicant at [105] of the spec. as filed), and polyester for devices for dispersing stress across a wound are known in the art, for example, see US 2003/0176828 A1 to Buckman et al. at [0061].
The combination of Belson and Renke, as discussed above for the reasons set forth above, would further disclose, with respect to claim 23, wherein the attachment section is configured to be disposed closest to a wound margin (see Fig. 5 and [0086]-[0092] of Belson), and the plurality of rays are configured to be disposed on a same side of the wound margin but farthest from the wound margin (see Fig. 5 and [0086]-[0092] of Belson; [0085] and Fig. 7A of Renke), note also that this is an intended use limitation – see MPEP 2114 – the combination device is fully capable of being placed relative to a wound margin as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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 combination of Belson and Renke fail to teach or suggest wherein the attachment section is tapered narrowest farthest away from the common section and widest closest to the common section. There is no suggestion of tapering the device as claimed, and no apparent reason to taper the device apparent from the prior art or the general skill of an ordinary artisan, absent hindsight. This tapering is disclosed in the spec. as filed at [107] as being useful for allowing proper adhesion possible in areas that are difficult to secure due to small surface area or increased sweat and at [109] by allowing the tapered configuration to provide wider portions further from the wound spaced to couple to large surface areas of adhesion in portions of skin that are generally drier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 21-23 as amended have been considered but are not persuasive. It is noted that the amendment and arguments are substantially as set forth in the after-final response filed 12/01/2025. As addressed in the advisory action dated 12/09/2025, these arguments were not found persuasive. As the arguments are the same, the arguments still remain unpersuasive. A reproduction of the Examiner’s response to the arguments from the advisory action is pasted below.
The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because: Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive. Belson's "third zone" has outer portions not adjacent the wound, but rather, opposite to the wound on the periphery overlying skin. Belson teaches the benefit of providing "rays" to this area near the skin - enhancing adhesion to the skin by being used to direct and vary forces of contraction by being arranged in a set pattern. The force applied to the arrows indicated by "d1" in Belson's Fig. 4 would result in the skin at the outer areas (such as near where #20 points to) being pulled - the presence of the rays would enhance adhesion to the skin in this area by directing and varying the contraction forces. Moreover, this modification does not render Belson inoperable for its intended purpose - there is no evidence to support application's assertion of "bunching" resulting. Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the rays would not have been applicable to Belson's device, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN L DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-5263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771