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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted and filed after the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance on 04/15/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because 604b appears to be the proximal end and 604c appears to be the distal end in figs. 8 and 13. 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: 604b appears to be the proximal end and 604c appears to be the distal end in figs. 8 and 13 as described and also shown in figure 2. The specification [0128, 0205, 0436] discloses 604b is the distal end and 604c is the proximal end but this is in contradiction with the figures (2, 8, and 13).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-25 and 31 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.
The term/phrase “is about” in claims 21-25 and 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “is about” 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. Since one range has already been claimed in claims 18 and 19 then a second range within the range tends toward confusion. Consider removing the second recitation of “about” or reciting “or” in claims 21-25 and 31 since a range along with a second recitation “about” within a range having “about” is unclear whether the preferred range (first recited range of claims 18 & 19) is a limitation or merely an example. Also, the term “about” makes it unclear what the upper/lower limits are, which could comprise the original range or even beyond.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 18 and 34, proximal and distal appear to be reversed and should be swapped. See specification and drawing objections above. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 18-20, 26-30, and 32-36 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a surgical adjunct comprising all the structural and functional limitations and further comprising, amongst other limitations/features, the surgical adjunct having a distal end and a proximal end chamfer, wherein the distal end chamfer comprises a vertical portion extending from a bottom of the surgical adjunct, the vertical portion has a height of about 0.009 inches to about 0.029 inches, wherein the distal end chamfer comprises an angled portion extending from the vertical portion to a top surface of the surgical adjunct, wherein the proximal end chamfer comprises a first angled side extension and a second angled side extension extending away from the distal end of the surgical adjunct to the proximal end of proximal end chamfer. Though Schellin et al. (US 20140166726 A1) teaches a surgical adjunct comprising polyurethane foam with adding a plasticizer and adjusting the shape and total volume of the surgical adjunct, it would not be obvious to modify surgical adjunct with having distal end and a proximal end chamfers with the specific shape with the claimed specific angles and slope dimensions and one of ordinary skill would recognize that a chamfers with specific shapes and volumes cannot be added without having to also modify the adjunct layer members to function with a chamfer configuration. Having the effective surgical adjunct comprising polyurethane foam with adding a plasticizer with adjusting the shape and total volume of the surgical adjunct provides an effective sealing and compressive healing closure of a surgical area.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140224857 A1 – adjunct with foam, film, (Poly(lactic acid-co-polycaprolactone)), PLLA/PCL, PGA/TMC (Poly(glycolic acid-co-trimethylene carbonate)), absorbable polyurethane… spinning, solvent welding, coating methods, such as dip coating and spin coating, solution casting and film casting, plastisol processing (including knife coating, roller coating and casting), and combinations thereof [0450, 0623]
US 20220370684 A1 – melt spinning [0308], electro spinning, [0319] albumin coating/electro spinning [0430] and see references cited, form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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, Hemant Desai can be reached on (571) 272-4458. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights