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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 500, 510 and 520. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 600 in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line for 860 in the upper is missing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0037] recites “the central base 320”, however, reference character 320 has previously been used to designate a “tab section”. Perhaps the phrase should read --the central section 310--. Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Velcro, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Applicant is advised to include the proper indicating use in commerce, namely, ®.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). With respect to claim 1, the recitation “the first dressing component covers a first portion of the extremity” claims a portion of the human body along with the invention. Applicant is reminded that the human body and/or parts thereof may not be claimed as components or along with the claimed invention. Applicant is advised to amend the recitation to recite --the first dressing component is configured to cover a first portion of the extremity-- or similar language. Additionally, the recitation, “the second dressing component covers a second portion of the extremity” also claims a portion of the human body along with the invention. Applicant is advised to amend the recitation to recite --the second dressing component is configured to cover a second portion of the extremity-- or similar language.
Dependent claims 2-3 are necessarily rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by All Health
Regarding claim 1, All Health discloses a wound care kit and first aid supplies that anticipates Applicant’s presently claimed invention. More specifically, All Health discloses a dressing kit (shown below) capable of treating an extremity attached to a fixation frame. It must be noted that the recitation “for treating an extremity attached to a fixation frame” is an intended use recitation. The court held “[i] f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The dressing kit comprising: a first dressing component comprising an absorbent flexible dressing body having a plurality of attachment tabs, and a second dressing component comprising an absorbent flexible dressing body having a plurality of attachment tabs, the first dressing component having a different configuration than the second dressing component (note the annotate figure below and the use of gauze and non-sticks pad, both of which are absorbent).
Applicant’s recitation of wherein the first dressing component covers a first portion of the extremity but not a second portion of the extremity and the second dressing component covers the second portion of the extremity but not the first portion of the extremity is being interpreted as wherein the first dressing component is configured to cover a first portion of the extremity but not a second portion of the extremity and the second dressing component is configured to cover the second portion of the extremity but not the first portion of the extremity (the first and second dressings identified below are fully capable of covering first and second portions of the extremities, respectively), and at least a first portion of the first dressing component overlaps at least a second portion of the second dressing component (the dressings are fully capable of overlapping when applied to an extremity of a user), and wherein the first and second dressing components can be applied to the extremity attached to a fixation frame without requiring adjustment of an element of the fixation frame (the first and second dressing are fully capable of being applied to an extremity having a fixation frame attached thereto, without removal of the fixation frame).
PNG
media_image1.png
1142
1904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over All-Health in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,020,262 (Longfellow).
Regarding claim 2, All-Health discloses the dressing kit of claim 1, except wherein the extremity attached to the fixation frame is a patient's foot. However, Longfellow teaches it is known to provide a foot with an external fixation frame (see Fig. 1).
In view of Longfellow, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have attached a fixation frame to a foot of a user in order to treat fractured bones in and around the foot.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,409,970 (Carrel).
Regarding claim 3, All-Health discloses the dressing kit of claim 1, except wherein the extremity attached to the fixation frame is a patient's hand. However, Carrel teaches it is known to provide a foot with an external fixation frame (see Fig. 10).
In view of Carrel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have attached a fixation frame to a hand of a user in order to treat fractured bones in and around the hand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 5,080,661 to Lavender et al. and U.S. Patent No. 5,447,492 to Cartmell et al. disclose external fixation dressings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM M LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 5:30 am -11:30 am.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/KIM M LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786