DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 2/24/26, Applicant has amended claims 1-3; amended the abstract; and amended the specification. Currently, claims 1-3 are pending in the application.
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 .
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (WO 2007/003905) in view of Hishinuma (US 6423165).
With respect to claim 1, Griffiths discloses a bandage of elongate form (material suitable for forming into a wound dressing/bandage – pg 1 lines 1-4; the bandage material is in elongate form and provided in a roll as shown in fig 1) in which sections of the bandage can be of a woven or non-woven fabric (pg 1 lines 4-6); the bandage comprising multiple side-by-side sections (cut lengths of the roll material can be joined together along longitudinal edges thus providing multiple side-by-side sections of the bandage – pg 6 lines 16-23) wherein the adjoining sections of the multiple side-by-side sections are held together via fibre material (the cut lengths of the roll material are joined by stitching – pg 6 lines 16-19).
Griffiths does not, however, disclose that the side-by-side sections are held together via water-soluble fibre material.
Hishinuma teaches use of water soluble threads (threads are interpreted as being fibre material) for sewing pieces of cloth together (col 3 lines 11-12,40-42) and then using water to solve and remove the water-soluble threads in order to disconnect the cloth pieces and separate them from one another (col 3 lines 51-53 and col 8 lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used water soluble threads as taught by Hishinuma for the stitches that join the side-by-side sections of the bandage in Griffiths in order to allow easy separation of individual sections from one another using just water to permit selective removal of sections in order to customize the shape and/or size of the bandage.
With respect to claim 2, Griffiths in view of Hishinuma discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Griffiths further discloses that the adjoining sections of the bandage are sewn together (the cut lengths of the roll material are joined by stitching – pg 6 lines 16-19).
Griffiths does not, however, disclose that the sections are sewn together with a water soluble thread.
Hishinuma teaches use of water soluble threads (threads are interpreted as being fibre material) for sewing pieces of cloth together (col 3 lines 11-12,40-42) and then using water to solve and remove the water-soluble threads in order to disconnect the cloth pieces and separate them from one another (col 3 lines 51-53 and col 8 lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used water soluble threads as taught by Hishinuma for the stitches that are used for sewing the sections together in Griffiths in order to allow easy separation of individual sections from one another using just water to permit selective removal of sections in order to customize the shape and/or size of the bandage.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (WO 2007/003905) in view of Hishinuma (US 6423165) and further in view of Simon (US 2006/0159730).
With respect to claim 3, Griffiths in view of Hishinuma discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that the adjoining sections are joined together by a non-woven soluble material which is attached to each adjoining section of the bandage by needling or alternatively adhesive.
Simon, however, teaches a structure which includes multiple sections (layers of nonwoven fabric) that are joined together by non-woven soluble material (the medium used to form the article can comprise at least two layers of nonwoven fabric that are each constituted essentially by fibers that are soluble in water – see para [0053]; more specifically, the medium can comprise a plurality of layers that are assembled together as described in para [0076] which is interpreted to mean that the article includes more than just two layers, wherein one of said layers inherently will join the layers located directly adjacent to it to each other) which is attached to each adjoining section by adhesive (the plurality of layers are assembled together such as by adhesive – para [0076]). 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 bandage of Griffiths in view of Hishinuma so that the adjoining sections are joined together by a non-woven soluble material which is attached to each adjoining section of the bandage by adhesive, as taught by Simon, in order to allow easy separation of individual sections from the bandage using just water to permit selective removal of sections in order to customize the shape and/or size of the bandage.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 2/24/26 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the objections to the abstract, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the specification, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections which, accordingly, have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicant’s arguments on pages 4-7 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights