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 .
Applicant’s election, without traverse of Group I claims 1-8 and 15-16 directed to a protective material is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 9-14 and 17 are withdrawn from consideration at this time. Applicant has added new claims 18-20 which will be examined with Group I.
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.
Claims 4-8, 18 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" as recited in (ii) of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" as recited in (i) of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 is rendered indefinite because of the term “preferably” recited in (vii) of the claim. The term “preferably” makes it unclear if the adhesive is silicone or some other material. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim to refer to the adhesive being any adhesive material. Claims 7-8, 16 and 20 are rendered indefinite as the claims depend on indefinite claim 6.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "pigment" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al., CN113846419 in view of Miyoshi et al., JP H11-188053.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Cao discloses a nanofiber medical dressing [0001]. Paragraph 0006 discloses an electrospinning method [forms nonwoven] Paragraph 0009 discloses antibacterial layer comprises polycaprolactone and polyethylene glycol [polyethylene oxide]. Paragraph 0012 discloses a polycaprolactone/polyethylene glycol [polyethylene oxide] mixture in a mass ratio 10;1 [0012].
Cao is silent to the nonwoven being spot welded. Miyoshi discloses a nonwoven fabric [0012]. Paragraph 0001 of Miyoshi discloses a medical adhesive patch for skin adhesion. Miyoshi discloses that the fabric is formed from a spun polymer wherein the polymer can include polycaprolactone [0034]. It is disclosed in paragraph 0096 of Miyoshi that the nonwoven is spot welded. The abstract of Miyoshi discloses having no shrinkage. Cao and Miyoshi are analogous art in that both references disclose a skin patch/dressing formed of a nonwoven fabric. It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the nonwoven fabric of Cao spot welded in order to have reduced shrinkage in the fabric
Regarding claim 15, paragraph 0071 discloses that the wound dressing is used for scar hyperplasia [skin].
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a product. The manner in which the product is manufactured does not make the product different from the prior art if the prior art product has the same structural limitations as claimed. The combination of Cao and Miyoshi discloses a nonwoven fabric including polycaprolactone/polyethylene glycol [polyethylene oxide] mixture in a mass ratio 10:1. Miyoshi is brought in to show that nonwoven fabrics for skin dressings can be spot welded to reduce shrinkage.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doshi et al., U.S. Pre Grant Publication 20110229551 in view of Miyoshi et al., JP H11-188053
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Doshi discloses wound dressings and cosmetic skin masks [abstract] Paragraph 0010 discloses a nanofiber web including an active ingredient. Paragraph 0016 of Doshi discloses that the nanofibers are formed by electrospinning. It is disclosed in paragraph 0018 of Doshi a blend including polyethylene oxide, polycaprolactone and hyaluronic acid. Doshi is silent to the amount of hyaluronic acid present. However, this is an optimizable feature. The amount of hyaluronic acid affects drug delivery. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of hyaluronic acid to 5% by weight in relation to the total weight of the polycaprolactone and polyethylene oxide for enhanced drug delivery.
Doshi is silent to the nonwoven being spot welded. Miyoshi discloses a nonwoven fabric [0012]. Paragraph 0001 of Miyoshi discloses a medical adhesive patch for skin adhesion. Miyoshi discloses that the fabric is formed from a spun polymer wherein the polymer can include polycaprolactone [0034]. It is disclosed in paragraph 0096 of Miyoshi that the nonwoven is spot welded. The abstract of Miyoshi discloses having no shrinkage. Doshi and Miyoshi are analogous art in that both references disclose a skin patch/dressing formed of a nonwoven fabric. It would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the nonwoven fabric of Doshi spot welded in order to have reduced shrinkage in the fabric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMIE S THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1530. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/CAMIE S THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights