DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of claims
The claims filed 1/19/2024 has been entered: Claims 17-35 remain pending. Claims 17-35 are new and are examined on the merits. Claims 1-16 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “continuous” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “continuous” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is relative in that the distinction between a “discontinuous” filament (e.g. a filament that has is cut) or, for example, a pair of shorter “continuous” filaments” is unclear. As best understood, the term “continuous” appears to suggest the fibers being at least a certain length; however, the specification does not set forward such a length, nor does it otherwise describe what makes a fiber “continuous”.
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 33 is considered as indefinite. The term “generally” in claim 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is unclear what shape would be considered a “generally” flattened profile (e.g. what portions or how much of the profile must be flattened to be considered generally flattened).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-24, 26-35are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McNeil (US 2010/0087767 A1) in view of Biggie et al. (US 2005/0137539 A1), and Feibus (US 5,180,375 A), as evidenced by Zins (US 4,422,483 A).
Regarding claim 17, McNeil teaches a negative pressure wound therapy dressing apparatus (Fig. 1 and Fig. 5; Abstract) comprising:
a wound dressing configured to form a substantially tight fluid seal around a wound, the wound dressing comprising a cover layer comprising an aperture therein through which negative pressure can be applied to the wound (best seen in Fig. 5, wound dressing includes manifold 310, sealing member 312, and aperture 332; described in ¶s 38-41),
an elongate conduit (Fig. 2A-D; Abstract) having a first end and a second end (first end 202 and second end 204; ¶s 7 and 27) and a lumen extending therebetween (best seen in Figs. 2C and 2D, defined around manifold 212), the first and configured to form a substantially fluid tight seal over the aperture in the cover layer (¶s 37-41 describe how the conduit is attached to the wound site to provide reduced pressure);
an inner foam tubular core disposed within the lumen of the conduit and extending along substantially the entire length of the conduit (Fig. 2C, delivery manifold 212 and Fig. 5, delivery manifold 330), wherein the core has a first end and a second end opposite from the first end (best seen in Fig. 2B, the ends being inherent to the elongated shape of the core), the first end and configured to be in fluid communication with the wound through the aperture in the cover layer (best seen in Fig. 5, via aperture 332; ¶ 41) and a covering, wherein the covering surrounds the inner core (Fig. 2C, encapsulating members 210 and 214, and Fig. 5, encapsulating members 324 and 342; ¶s 28, 30, and 41), and
a connection member configured to be coupled to the second end of the elongated conduit and to be in fluid communication with the second end of the core (Fig. 1, delivery conduit 118; ¶s 25-26), wherein the connection member is configured to be in fluid communication with a vacuum source to direct negative pressure through the elongate conduit (reduced-pressure source 120; ¶ 25), wherein the connection member is configured to be directly or indirectly connected to the vacuum source to direct negative pressure through the elongate conduit to the wound dressing without a collection canister configured to collect fluid at or near the vacuum source (¶ 26 describes how additional devices coupled to the conduit 118 are optional depending on the application), and wherein the connection member comprises a filter (¶ 26 describes the use of filters).
McNeil does not explicitly teach the core being a fibrous core, and wherein the fibrous core comprises an elongate sleeve having a length extending along the length of the fibrous.
Biggie teaches a negative pressure wound dressing (Fig. 5; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, having an absorbent manifold comprising knit fibers (¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the inner core of McNeil comprise fibers as taught by Biggie. Doing so would thus comprise an inner filament tubular core as claimed. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of preventing collapse of the of the conduit (Paragraph 65 of Biggie indicates how the filaments are used to prevent collapse during negative pressure generated by a vacuum pump while still allowing fluid therethrough).
The combination still does not explicitly teach a elongate sleeve having a length extending along the length of the fibrous core.
Feibus teaches a wound drainage conduit (Fig. 12; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a woven/knitted covering surrounding an inner filament tubular core (Figs. 9 and 12, warps and wefts 1 and 2; Col. 4, lines 47-64).
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 McNeil and Biggie to specifically comprise the knitted cover as taught by Feibus. Doing so would thus comprise a covering (surrounding the inner tubular core and within the outer covering of McNeil), as well as sleeve having a length extending along the length of the fibrous core. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17.
Feibus further teaches the wound drainage conduit comprising a bundle of fibers (filler record 7; Col. 6, lines 4-7).
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 modified the inner filament tubular core of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to specifically be comprised as a bundle of fibers as taught by Feibus. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage in making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17.
Feibus (Fig. 12; Abstract) further teaches that the conduits comprise a bundle of fibers (element 7; Col. 6, lines 4-7) where the inner filament tubular core comprises at least one fiber having a round cross-section (best shown in Fig. 2).
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 inner filament tubular core of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to specifically comprise a bundle of fibers as taught by Feibus. Doing so would comprise fibers having a round cross section and would be obvious to provide the advantage of making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. Biggie further teaches the inner filament tubular core comprises a continuous fiber (¶ 65 of Biggie indicates knit fibers, which are implied to be continuous).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the inner core of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus comprise fibers as taught by Biggie. Doing so would thus comprise continuous fibers. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of preventing collapse of the of the conduit (Paragraph 65 of Biggie indicates how the filaments are used to prevent collapse during negative pressure generated by a vacuum pump while still allowing fluid therethrough).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17.
Feibus (Fig. 12; Abstract) further teaches comprising a bundle of fibers (element 7; Col. 6, lines 4-7) comprising at least one hydrophilic fiber (i.e. nonconductive yarns; Col. 7, lines 3-9 describe the nonconductive yarns as being polyester, a hydrophobic material; also see Col. 4, lines 56-59).
As previously stated, 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 inner filament tubular core of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to specifically comprise a bundle of fibers as taught by Feibus. Doing so would thus comprise at least one hydrophobic fiber and would be obvious to provide the advantage of making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. They do not explicitly teach the inner filament tubular core comprises at least one hydrophilic fiber.
Feibus further teaches comprising at least one hydrophilic fiber (i.e. conductive yarns; Col. 7, lines 16-21 describe the conductive yarns as being nylon, a hydrophilic material; also see Col. 4, lines 56-59).
As previously stated, 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 inner filament tubular core of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to specifically comprise a bundle of fibers as taught by Feibus. Doing so would thus comprise at least one hydrophilic fiber and would be obvious to provide the advantage of making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34).
Regarding claim 23, McNeil further teaches the elongate conduit comprises a moisture vapor permeable material (¶ 32).
Regarding claim 24, McNeil further teaches the elongate conduit comprises a polymer material (¶s 30, 32, and 38-40 describe various elements being made of various polymeric materials).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17.
Biggie further teaches the conduit being transparent (¶ 21).
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 modified the conduit of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to be transparent as taught by Biggie. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of allowing a healthcare provider to observe flow and color of fluid drained from the wound (¶ 21 of Biggie).
Regarding claim 27, the limitations of the fiber core is “configured to provide patency to the elongate conduit when negative pressure is applied to the conduit” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it comprises a fibers core that is intended to be used with negative pressure and thus would provide patency via said fibrous core).
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of the fiber core is “configured to prevent kinking of the elongate conduit” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus has all the structure of the device as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it comprises a fibers core that is intended to be used with negative pressure and thus would be configured to prevent kinking in the same manner).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17.
McNeil further teaches an adhesive coated thin film disposed between the elongate conduit and the outer covering and configured to attach the elongate conduit to the outer covering (McNeil, Figs. 2C and 2D, elements 210, 215, 226, and 228; Paragraph 31 describes how the two encapsulating layers are adhered together, each of the encapsulating layers being a part of the outer covering and the conduit, thus the adhesive attaching the two layers together attaches the elongate conduit to the outer covering).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. McNeil further discloses a check valve (end of ¶ 34), but does not explicitly disclose the connection member comprises the check valve and filter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the check valve such that it is explicitly comprised by the connection member since the claimed positioning of the check valve does not affect its function in preventing backflow to the wound. Since Applicant has not given any criticality as to why the position of the check valve has any importance to the function as claimed (¶ 46 indicates the connection member merely “may” include a check valve) the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which relates to Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. McNeil further discloses the connection member comprises a filter (Paragraph 26 of McNeil).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. McNeil further discloses a check valve (end of ¶ 34) and filter (end of ¶ 26), but does not explicitly disclose the connection member comprises the check valve and filter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the check valve and filter such that they are explicitly comprised by the connection member since the claimed positioning of the check valve does and filter not affect its function in preventing backflow to the wound and filtering out undesired substances. Since Applicant has not given any criticality as to why the position of the check valve and filter has any importance to the function as claimed (Paragraph 46 indicates the connection member merely “may” include a check valve and filter) the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), which relates to Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 36. McNeil further discloses the conduit having a flattened, planar profile (Fig. 2C of McNeil shows the top and bottom of the conduit being planar).
Regarding claims 34-35, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17.
Feibus further teaches comprising a woven/knitted covering (Figs. 9 and 12, elements 1 and 2; Col. 4, lines 47-64) comprising nylon (as in claim 34; Col. 4, lines 56-59 describe the warp including conductive filaments; Col. 7, lines 16-21 indicate these conductive filaments are nylon).
Feibus further cites Zins as teaching a suitable nylon material, Zins teaching explicitly nylon 6 (as in claim 35; Col. 5, lines 1-6). As such, Feibus teaches (claim 34 )the outer covering comprising a knitted nylon material and (claim 35) the nylon material being nylon 6.
As previously stated, 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 McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to specifically comprise the knitted covering as taught by Feibus. Doing so would thus comprise (claim 34) a knitted nylon material, and (claim 35) the material being nylon 6. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34).
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the core of McNeil to specifically comprise the polyester filaments of Feibus. Doing so would further be obvious to provide the advantage of making the device less prone to blockage (Col. 3, lines 9-34 of Feibus), polyester being a suitable material as such (Col. 7, lines 3-21).
Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Miau et al. (US 2010/0152639 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. The combination does not explicitly disclose the elongate conduit comprises polyvinyl chloride.
In the same field of endeavor, Miau teaches a wound treatment apparatus having an elongate conduit (Fig. 3; Abstract) comprising polyvinyl chloride (Paragraph 19).
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 McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to comprise polyvinyl chloride as taught by Miau (e.g. in an outer layer of the conduit). Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of providing a flexible, water-resistant, and bio-compatible conduit portion (Paragraph 19 of Miau).
In the alternative, Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus, as applied to claim 17, and further in view of Wudyka (US 2010/0204663 A1).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. The combination does not explicitly disclose the connection member comprises the check valve.
In the same field of endeavor, the endeavor being negative pressure wound dressings, Wudyka teaches a negative pressure wound therapy device (Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising a check valve in a wound dressing connector and a connection tube (¶ 23 indicates connector 114 or tube 106 may have a one-way valve).
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 McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to comprise the check-valve in the connection member as taught by Wudyka. Doing so would be obvious to provide the advantage of permitting exudate to flow only in one direction (¶ 23 of Wudyka).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus substantially disclose the invention of claim 17. McNeil further discloses the connection member comprises a filter (¶ 26 of McNeil). The combination does not explicitly disclose the connection member comprises the check valve.
In the same field of endeavor, Wudyka teaches a negative pressure wound therapy device (Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising a check valve in a wound dressing connector and a connection tube (¶ 23 indicates connector 114 or tube 106 may have a one-way valve).
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 McNeil, Biggie, and Feibus to comprise the check-valve in the connection member as taught by Wudyka. Doing so would thus comprise both a filter and check valve in the connection member and would further be obvious to provide the advantage of permitting exudate to flow only in one direction (¶ 23 of
Wudyka).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-35 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,406,036. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Double Patenting
Corresponding Claims
Instant Application
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 21
Claim 22
U.S. Patent No. 10,406,036
Claims 1, 14, 24
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Double Patenting
Corresponding Claims
Instant Application
Claim 23
Claim 24
Claim 25
Claim 26
Claim 27
Claim 28
U.S. Patent No. 10,406,036
Claims 8, 17
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 13
Although the claims of ‘036 claims do not identically recite each element of current claims (e.g., using substantially similar but not identical terms; different elements are in different claims; and/or different combinations of elements), the difference between claim 17 of the current application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,406,036 lies in the fact that the issued Patent claims includes more elements and is thus more specific. Thus, the invention of Patent No. 10,406,036 is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of current application claim 36. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Double Patenting
Corresponding Claims
Instant Application
Claim 29
Claim 30
Claim 31
Claim 32
Claim 33
U.S. Patent No. 10,406,036
Claim 15
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Double Patenting
Corresponding Claims
Instant Application
Claim 34
Claim 35
U.S. Patent No. 10,406,036
Claims 1, 16, 18
Claim 7
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robinson et al. (US 2008/0195017 A1), discloses a highly analogous conduit device (Figs. 1-2) comprising a knitted nylon layer (103; Paragraphs 28 and 37).
Andresen et al. (US 2010/0324510 A1) discloses a highly analogous conduit device (Fig. 2).
Eddy et al. (US A1) discloses foam and filaments are known materials for wound manifolds (Paragraph 53).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Rebecca E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781