DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 1/12/26, Applicant has amended claim 1. Currently, claims 1-10 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/26 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langen (US 2019/0001016 A1) in view of Kinoshita et al (US 2022/0041894 A1) and further in view of Augst et al (WO-9506450-A1) with extrinsic evidence from Ternon et al (WO 00/58538).
With respect to claim 1, Langen discloses a medical bandage (example 1 – cohesive nonwoven bandage; pg 2), characterized by comprising: a bandage body (web substrate – para [0023]) and an adhesive layer (cohesive PSA – para [0024]) provided on a surface of the bandage body (the cohesive PSA is coated on both surfaces of the elastic base textile formed from the web material – para [0024]); the bandage body (web substrate) including: a non-woven fabric base and a plurality of elastic reinforcing filaments that are sewn into the non-woven fabric base and extend in a warp direction of the non-woven fabric base (the web substrate is an elastic nonwoven construction obtained using stitch bonding technique of a polypropylene nonwoven with elastic elastane threads in the longitudinal/warp direction – para [0023]); wherein each elastic reinforcing filament punctures the non-woven fabric base up and down to form a plurality of coils surrounding the non-woven fabric base (the Maliwatt stitch bonding technique is used – para [0023] which involves continuously piercing through the nonwoven material with needles (i.e. punctures the fabric up and down) to stitch the elastane yarns into the substrate; the up and down motion of the needle during this process is interpreted as forming a plurality of loops or coil shapes throughout the fabric).
Langen does not, however, explicitly disclose that the plurality of coils formed by each elastic reinforcing filament are connected by the same elastic reinforcing filament to form continuous coils. Langen does, however, disclose use of stitch bonding to form the coils (as discussed above). Ternon more specifically teaches a nonwoven fabric web that includes chain stitches (4) that are formed by stitch bonding the web (1) and may comprise portions of continuous filaments (abstract). As shown in figures 2-3, the continuous filaments form a plurality of chain stitches (4) by stitch bonding on a first side (11) of the web and form loops on a second side (12) of the web opposite the first side (abstract). The looped structure is interpreted as being a plurality of coils. Specifically, the stitches/loops are formed during stitch bonding when piercing needles (2) collect the continuous filaments in the hook (5) of the needle and use the collected filaments to produce the chain stitches (4) (see abstract). Thus, the continuous filament forms the stitches of the chain stitch 4 and thus connects the plurality of coils (loops on side 12) by the same filament to thus form continuous coils. Since Langen explicitly discloses use of stitch bonding to form the plurality of coils in the fabric, the plurality of coils are expected to be connected by the same filament to form continuous coils like the plurality of coils in the fabric of Ternon, which are also formed by stitch bonding a nonwoven fabric.
Langen also does not disclose that the non-woven fabric base is provided with a plurality of cutting positions that are arranged at equal intervals in the warp direction; each cutting position is provided with at least one linear cutting opening that extends in a weft direction of the non-woven fabric base and is arranged in a row.
Kinoshita teaches a tape 2 that is configured for medical use (para [0056]) which preferably comprises a nonwoven base (para [0059]) and includes a plurality of cutting induction portions 10 that are provided to improve hand-tearability (abstract) wherein the induction portions 10 extend in the width direction D2 (para [0058]) and are arranged at equal intervals in the warp direction (the portions 10 are formed at an even pitch in the longitudinal direction D1 in the tape 2 – para [0058]) and are each provided with at least one linear cutting opening that is arranged in a row (the cutting induction portion 10 includes a plurality of actual cut lines 11 – para [0060]; the cut lines 11 extend in rows across the width D2 as shown in figs 2a-2b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided the non-woven fabric base of Langen with a plurality of cutting positions that are arranged at equal intervals in the warp direction wherein each cutting position is provided with at least one linear cutting opening that is arranged in a row as taught by Kinoshita in order to improve hand tearability of the device and thereby enable customization of the size to best meet the needs of a given user.
Kinoshita does not, however, disclose that the at least one linear cutting opening extends in a weft direction of the non-woven fabric base.
Augst teaches a nonwoven surgical tape which includes a plurality of linear cutting openings (perforations 60) which each extend in the weft direction of the nonwoven fabric base of the tape (the perforations extend in a direction parallel to the lateral direction 12 of the tape which is interpreted as being the weft direction) and which are arranged in a row (as shown in fig 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the linear cutting openings of Langen in view of Kinoshita so that the linear cutting openings extend in a weft direction of the non-woven fabric base, like the perforations 60 in Augst, in order to permit a user to tear the fabric in a straight line across the material.
Langen in view of Kinoshita also does not explicitly teach that the cutting opening is formed before sewing the elastic reinforcing filaments. However, the claim limitation requiring that the cutting opening is “formed before sewing the elastic reinforcing filaments” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the cutting opening is formed prior to a sewing step. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Langen in view of Kinoshita is silent as to the specific method or process used to form the cutting opening or, more specifically, the sequence of steps involved in the method of forming the opening, it appears that the product of Langen as modified by Kinoshita would be the same or similar as that claimed since the prior art device includes the requisite structural features of elastic reinforcing filaments sewn into the fabric base and at least one linear cutting opening, which are implied by the claimed steps.
With respect to claim 2, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Kinoshita also teaches that the lengths of the cutting openings in the plurality of cutting positions are equal (all the cut lines 11A have the same shape (as other cut lines 11A) and thus are interpreted as having the same length – para [0063]; fig 4a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the cutting openings in the device of Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst so that the lengths of the cutting openings in the plurality of cutting positions are equal like the length of the cutting openings at cut lines 11A in Kinoshita since modification of the size of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 3-4, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 2) and Kinoshita also teaches that the distances between arbitrary two adjacent cutting openings in the weft direction in the same cutting position are equal and the distances between adjacent cutting openings in the weft direction in the plurality of cutting positions are equal (patterns 13 of the cut lines 11 are disposed at the same positions in the longitudinal direction D1 and are disposed at a constant interval in the width direction D2 – para [0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the device of Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst so that the distances between arbitrary two adjacent cutting openings in the weft direction in the same cutting position are equal and the distances between adjacent cutting openings in the weft direction in the plurality of cutting positions are equal as taught in Kinoshita since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 4) and Kinoshita also teaches that for an arbitrary cutting opening in an arbitrary cutting position, there is only one cutting opening in each of the other cutting positions that is flush with the arbitrary cutting opening in the warp direction of the non-woven fabric base (para [0064-0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the device of Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst so that for an arbitrary cutting opening in an arbitrary cutting position, there is only one cutting opening in each of the other cutting positions that is flush with the arbitrary cutting opening in the warp direction of the non-woven fabric base as taught in Kinoshita since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Langen also discloses that the plurality of elastic reinforcing filaments are arranged at equal intervals in the weft direction of the non-woven fabric base (the sewing thread density is 45 threads per 10cm width with a stitch length of 3mm, open pillar stitching – para [0023] which is interpreted as providing the threads at equal intervals in the weft direction of the fabric).
With respect to claim 9, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 6) and Langen further discloses that the number of the elastic reinforcing filaments included in the medical bandage with a width of one inch in the weft direction is 7, 9 or 12 (para [0024] – sewing thread density is 45 threads per 10cm width which is approximately 12 threads per inch (45 threads/3.94in = 11.42 threads per inch which is rounded up to 12 threads since a partial thread would not be provided in the structure).
With respect to claim 10, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Langen also discloses that the number of the adhesive layers is two, and the two adhesive layers are provided on the two surfaces of the bandage body, respectively (both surfaces are coated with a cohesive pressure sensitive adhesive – para [0024]).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langen (US 2019/0001016 A1) in view of Kinoshita et al (US 2022/0041894 A1) and further in view of Augst et al (WO-9506450-A1) with extrinsic evidence from Ternon et al (WO 00/58538) and Tamoue et al (US 2022/0347019).
With respect to claim 7, Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not explicitly disclose that when no external force is applied, the non-woven fabric base is in a shrunk and wrinkled state in the warp direction under the action of the elastic reinforcing filaments.
Tamoue, however, teaches a bandage that is interpreted as being equivalent to that of Langen because it is formed using the same Malimo/Maliwatt stitch bonding process as described in Langen (see para [0036] of Tamoue) to provide elasticity in the longitudinal direction (para [0037-0039]) to a nonwoven base layer (para [0040]) wherein the finished fabric is configured to contract on tension release, with wrinkles raised in the material (para [0033]). Thus, the fabric of the bandage of Langen in view of Kinoshita and Ternon and further in view of Augst is expected to shrink and be in a wrinkled state in the warp direction under the action of the elastic reinforcing filaments when no external force is applied, like the fabric of Tamoue, since both bandages are structurally similar and are formed using the Malimo/Maliwatt stitch bonding process to provide elasticity in the longitudinal direction and thus should behave the same in response to application and/or removal of external forces.
With respect to claim 8, Langen in view of Kinoshita, Ternon, and Augst and further in view of Tamoue discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 7) and Langen further discloses that when a stretching force in the warp direction is applied, the length of the bandage body in the warp direction is longer than the initial length (stretchability of the finished bandage is 152-158% - para [0045]; the stretchability of the bandage indicates that the length will be longer when stretched in the warp direction than the initial length when unstretched).
Langen does not, however, explicitly disclose that the non-woven fabric
base is in a flat state when a stretching force in the warp direction is applied.
Tamoue, however, teaches a bandage that is interpreted as being equivalent to that of Langen because it is formed using the same Malimo/Maliwatt stitch bonding process as described in Langen (see para [0036] of Tamoue) to provide elasticity in the longitudinal direction (para [0037-0039]) to a nonwoven base layer (para [0040]) wherein the finished fabric is configured to contract on tension release, with wrinkles raised in the material (para [0033]). Since the material contracts and becomes wrinkled upon tension release, it is inherent that the material is stretched out and in a flat state when tension is applied. Thus, the fabric of the bandage of Langen in view of Kinoshita, Ternon, and Augst and further in view of Tamoue is expected to be in a flat state when a stretching force in the warp direction is applied, like the fabric of Tamoue, since both bandages are structurally similar and are formed using the Malimo/Maliwatt stitch bonding process to provide elasticity in the longitudinal direction and thus should behave the same in response to application and/or removal of external forces.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant’s amendments which were filed 12/9/25 and previously considered/entered (see advisory action dated 12/19/25) were sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-6 of the Response have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786