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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A3, B2, C4, and D3 in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that the species are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive. For example,
Claims 29, 31, and 32 recite different location of the plurality of holes (Species A). Claim 29 recites the plurality of holes are located at intersection of the grid, but claims 31 and 32 do not. Claim 31 recites the plurality of holes are located in cells of the grid, but claims 29 and 32 do not.
Claims 39 and 40 recite different configuration of the plurality of holes (Species B). Claim 39 recites the plurality of holes only extend through the foam, but claim 40 recites the plurality of holes extend through the foam, the first polymer film, and the second polymer film.
Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing different species poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 27-28, 32, 37, 40-41, 43-48, 53, and 58 are directed to Species A3, B2, C4, and D3.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 27-29, 31-32, 37, 39-41, 43-50, 52-53, and 58 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 27-28, 32, 37, 40-41, 43-48, 53, and 58 is/are examined on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 and 06/04/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 47, the limitation “sacrificial joints between the separable sections and sacrificial joints between the openings and the separable sections” has been interpreted below as if the claimed sacrificial bonds comprise sacrificial materials such as hot-melt films/adhesives (as suggested in ¶0071 of Applicant’s published application).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, the limitation “means for bonding the first polymer film to the second polymer film to form separable sections of the foam and a plurality of holes” has been interpreted under 112(f) as a mean plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “means” and functional language “bonding the first polymer film to the second polymer film to form separable sections of the foam and a plurality of holes” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Suitable means for bonding the first layer 405 to the second layer 410 may include, for example, an adhesive such as an acrylic, and welding, such as heat, radio frequency (RF), or ultrasonic welding: ¶0071 and Fig. 5) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 27-28, 32, 37, 40-41, 43-48, 53, and 58 is/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.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “a plurality of slits in the polymer film adjacent to at least the first surface” which is indefinite. It is unclear which “polymer film” is referred to since there are two polymer films introduced in claim 27. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- a plurality of slits in the first polymer film adjacent to at least the first surface --.
Claim(s) 28, 32, 37, and 40-41 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 27 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 40 recites the limitation “the plurality of holes extends through the foam, the first polymer film, and the second polymer film” which is indefinite. It is unclear how the plurality of holes extends through the foam if the plurality of holes formed on the bonding of the first polymer film and the second polymer film. According to ¶0058 and Figs. 3-4 of Applicant’s published application, the plurality of holes 225 extends through the first polymer film and the second polymer film, not through the foam. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- the plurality of holes extends through [[
Claim 43 recites the limitation “a plurality of fluid restrictions in the polymer film adjacent to at least the first side” which is indefinite. It is unclear which “polymer film” is referred to since there are two polymer films introduced in claim 43. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- a plurality of fluid restrictions in the first polymer film adjacent to at least the first side --.
Claim(s) 44-48, 53, and 58 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 43 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “the manifold comprises perforations aligned with the plurality of bonds” which is indefinite. It is unclear how the perforations of the manifold aligned with the plurality of bonds if the plurality of bonds formed between the first layer and the second layer, the first layer is adjacent to the first side of the manifold, and the second layer adjacent to the second side of the manifold. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- the manifold comprises perforations [[between the plurality of bonds --.
Claim 47 recites the limitation “the manifold comprises perforations aligned with the plurality of bonds” which is indefinite. It is unclear how the perforations of the manifold aligned with the plurality of bonds if the plurality of bonds formed between the first layer and the second layer, the first layer is adjacent to the first side of the manifold, and the second layer adjacent to the second side of the manifold. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- the manifold comprises perforations [[between the plurality of bonds --.
Claim 48 recites the limitation “the second plurality of bonds seal the separable sections of the manifold from the openings” which is indefinite. It is unclear what the scope of the claimed second plurality of bonds is. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- the second plurality of bonds [[form the openings --.
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 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) 27-28, 32, 40-41, 43-46, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US PGPUB 20170209641) in view of Heagle (US PGPUB 20100036334).
Regarding claim 27, Mercer discloses a tissue interface (a wound dressing 814: ¶0104 and Figs. 8A-B) for treating a tissue site with negative pressure (¶0003 and Fig. 1), the tissue interface (814) comprising:
a foam (leg manifold 838: ¶0060 and 0103) comprising a first surface (a top surface of 838: Fig. 8B) and a second surface opposite the first surface (a bottom surface of 838: Fig. 8B);
a first polymer film (a second film layer 214 comprises polyurethane film: ¶0048, 0050, and Fig. 8B) adjacent to the first surface (Fig. 8B) and a second layer (a first film layer 212 polyurethane film: ¶0048, 0050, and Fig. 8B) adjacent to the second surface (Fig. 8B);
a plurality of slits (a plurality of openings or fenestrations 218 for providing a desired fluid flow: ¶0051 and Fig. 8B) in the first polymer film adjacent to at least the first surface (Fig. 8B).
Mercer further discloses the tissue interface (814) comprises a means for bonding between the first polymer film and the second polymer film (leg bonds 252: ¶0104 and Figs. 8A-B), but Mercer does not disclose the means for bonding forming separable sections of the foam and a plurality of holes.
In the same field of endeavor, Heagle discloses a wound dressing (Abstract and Fig. 1) comprising a foam (a packing structure 220 comprising a filler material 222 surrounded by a sheath of contact material 224 for receiving, retaining or conveying wound exudate: ¶0005, 0090, Figs. 1 and 6B; thus, the packing structure reads on the claimed foam) formed from a polymer envelope around a foam filler (222 and 224: ¶0012 and 0090), the foam further comprising a plurality of bonds (the foam 220 comprising separation features 226: ¶0090 and Fig. 6B), the plurality of bonds forming separable sections and a plurality of holes (226 defining separable sections of the foam 220 and a perforated tear line: ¶0090, 0091, and Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Mercer in view of Heagle by incorporating/forming separation sections and a plurality of holes in the means for bonding the first polymer film and the second polymer film, in order to allow a clinician to resize the manifold layer based on the dimensions of the wound, as suggested in ¶0090 of Heagle.
Regarding claim 28, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 27.
Mercer further discloses the means for bonding between the first polymer film and the second polymer film includes at least one of a weld or a bond (a weld or bonding device: ¶0061)
Regarding claim 32, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 27.
Mercer does not disclose the separable sections comprise a grid of separable sections; a first portion of the holes are located at intersections of the grid; and a second portion of the holes are located in cells of the grid.
In the embodiment of Fig. 11, Heagle further discloses the separable sections comprise a grid of separable sections (seal 296 comprising perforations to facilitate removal of pod 298: ¶0106 and Fig. 11), a first portion of the holes are located at intersections of the grid; and a second portion of the holes are located in cells of the grid (perforations formed along the seal 296: ¶0106 and Fig. 11; thus, Heagle implicitly discloses a first portion of the perforations are located at intersections of the grid; and a second portion of the perforations are located in cells of the grid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the tissue interface of Mercer in view of Heagle by having a grid of separable sections as claimed, in order to facilitate removal of each separation section as needed, as suggested in ¶0106 of Heagle.
Regarding claim 40, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 27.
Mercer in view of Heagle discloses the plurality of holes extend through the first polymer film and the second polymer film (see rejection of claim 27 above).
Regarding claim 41, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 27.
Mercer in view of Heagle discloses each opening of the plurality of holes is elongated (the plurality of holes extends through the first polymer film and the second polymer film: see rejection of claim 27 above).
Regarding claim 43, Mercer discloses an apparatus for providing negative pressure treatment to a tissue site (a treatment system 102: ¶0024 and Fig. 1), the apparatus (102) comprising:
a manifold (leg manifold 838: ¶0060 and 0103) comprising a first side (a top surface of 838: Fig. 8B) and a second side opposite the first side (a bottom surface of 838: Fig. 8B);
a first layer (a second layer 214 comprises polyurethane film: ¶0048, 0050, and Fig. 8B) adjacent to the first side (Fig. 8B) and a second layer (a first layer 212 polyurethane film: ¶0048, 0050, and Fig. 8B) adjacent to the second side (Fig. 8B); the first layer and the second layer each comprising a polymer film (¶0048 and 0050);
a plurality of fluid restrictions (a plurality of openings or fenestrations 218 for providing a desired fluid flow: ¶0051 and Fig. 8B) in the first polymer film adjacent to at least the first side (Fig. 8B);
a negative-pressure source fluidly coupled to the manifold (a reduced pressure source 136: ¶0027 and Fig. 1).
Mercer further discloses the apparatus comprises a plurality of bonds between the first layer and the second layer (leg bonds 252: ¶0104 and Figs. 8A-B), but Mercer does not disclose the plurality of bonds defining separable sections of the manifold and a plurality of openings.
In the same field of endeavor, Heagle discloses a wound dressing (Abstract and Fig. 1) comprising a foam (a packing structure 220 comprising a filler material 222 surrounded by a sheath of contact material 224 for receiving, retaining or conveying wound exudate: ¶0005, 0090, Figs. 1 and 6B; thus, the packing structure reads on the claimed manifold) formed from a polymer envelope around a foam filler (222 and 224: ¶0012 and 0090), the manifold further comprising a plurality of bonds (the manifold 220 comprising separation features 226: ¶0090 and Fig. 6B), the plurality of bonds forming separable sections and a plurality of openings (226 defining separable sections of the foam 220 and a perforated tear line: ¶0090, 0091, and Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tissue interface of Mercer in view of Heagle by incorporating/forming separation sections and a plurality of openings in the plurality of bonds between the first layer and the second layer, in order to allow a clinician to resize the manifold layer based on the dimensions of the wound, as suggested in ¶0090 of Heagle.
Regarding claim 44, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 43.
Mercer does not disclose the plurality of bonds comprises a first plurality of bonds and a second plurality of bonds, the first plurality of bonds form seams having a width of at least 2 millimeters between the separable sections of the manifold and the second plurality of bonds form the openings.
Heagle further discloses/suggests the plurality of bonds forming seams between separable sections of the manifold (226 forming seams between separable sections of the manifold: ¶0090-0091 and Fig. 6B) for the benefit of allowing a clinician to resize the manifold layer based on the dimensions of the wound (¶0090), but still does not disclose the size of the seams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Mercer in view of Heagle by incorporating/forming seams at a first plurality of bonds and having a width of at least 2 mm between the separable sections of the manifold, in order to allow a clinician to resize the manifold layer based on the dimensions of the wound, as suggested in ¶0090 of Heagle and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). In addition, since the taught seams and the claimed seams are patentably indistinct in term of structures and the taught seams are used to allow for sizing of the manifold, and are capable of functioning appropriately with the claimed width. Also, since Applicant places no criticality on the claimed width range, one would have been motivated to scale the width of the seams of at least 2 mm between separable sections of the manifold for the purpose of providing enough space between each separable section to assist in sizing of the manifold.
Since the first plurality of bonds forms seams between the separable sections of the manifold, a second plurality of bonds inherently forms the plurality of openings.
Regarding claim 45, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 43.
Mercer in view of Heagle further discloses the manifold comprises perforations (the manifold comprises perforations or flow channels in order to improve distribution of fluids provided to and removed from an area around the manifold: ¶0043 of Mercer) between the plurality of bonds (since the manifold is between the plurality of bonds, the perforations are between the plurality of bonds: see rejection of claim 43 above).
Regarding claim 46, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 43.
Mercer in view of Heagle further discloses the manifold comprises perforations (the manifold comprises perforations or flow channels in order to improve distribution of fluids provided to and removed from an area around the manifold: ¶0043 of Mercer) between the separable sections (since the manifold is between the separable sections, the perforations are between the separable sections: see rejection of claim 43 above).
Regarding claim 48, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 43.
Mercer in view of Heagle inherently discloses the plurality of bonds comprises a first plurality of bonds and a second plurality of bonds, the first plurality of bonds form a seal between the separable sections of the manifold and the second plurality of bonds form the openings (see rejection of claim 43 above).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US PGPUB 20170209641) in view of Heagle (US PGPUB 20100036334), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Locke (US PGPUB 20180113657).
Regarding claim 37, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 27.
Mercer does not disclose a first portion of the plurality of holes has a first average effective diameter; and a second portion of the plurality of holes has a second average effective diameter, the second average effective diameter being different than the first average effective diameter.
In an analogous art for being directed to solve the same problem, providing various shapes of openings for an adhesive layer, Locke discloses a dressing 102 comprising a first adhesive layer 118 and a second adhesive layer 120 (¶0028 and Fig. 2). Locke further discloses/suggests the second adhesive layer is formed with a plurality of apertures/openings 124 having a first effective diameter 134 and a second effective diameter 138 (¶0065-0066)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the tissue interface of Mercer in view of Locke by making a first portion of the plurality of holes has a first average effective diameter; and a second portion of the plurality of holes has a second average effective diameter, the second average effective diameter being different than the first average effective diameter, as suggested in ¶0065-0066 and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, one would have been motivated to have the second average effective diameter being different than the first average effective diameter for the purpose of permitting flow through the tissue interface. In addition, Applicant places no criticality on the claimed first average effective diameter and second average effective diameter (¶0076).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US PGPUB 20170209641) in view of Heagle (US PGPUB 20100036334), as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Nakada (US PGPUB 20160244647).
Regarding claim 47, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 43.
Mercer in view of Heagle further discloses the manifold comprises perforations (the manifold comprises perforations or flow channels in order to improve distribution of fluids provided to and removed from an area around the manifold: ¶0043 of Mercer) between the plurality of bonds (since the manifold is between the plurality of bonds, the perforations are between the plurality of bonds: see rejection of claim 43 above).
Mercer/Heagle does not disclose sacrificial joints between the separable sections and sacrificial joints between the openings and the separable sections.
In an analogous art for being directed to solve the same problem, hot-melt adhesive for wound dressing, Nakada discloses/suggests that a hot-melt adhesive layer is used to adhere an adhesive film/sheet to an adherend (¶0004) for the benefit of providing sufficient adhesive strength (¶0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Mercer in view of Nakada by using hot-melt adhesives/films for the plurality of bonds, in order to provide sufficient adhesive strength, as suggested in ¶0144 of Nakada and as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP § 2144.07). Further, one would have been motivated to select hot-melt adhesives/films to attach the first layer to the second layer for the purpose of providing sufficient adhesive strength. Thus, the apparatus of Mercer in view of Nakada further discloses sacrificial joints between the separable sections and sacrificial joints between the openings and the separable sections.
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer (US PGPUB 20170209641) in view of Heagle (US PGPUB 20100036334), as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Locke (US PGPUB 20180113657).
Regarding claim 58, Mercer/Heagle discloses all the limitations as discussed above for claim 43.
Mercer does not disclose a first portion of the plurality of openings has a first average effective diameter; and a second portion of the plurality of openings has a second average effective diameter, the second average effective diameter being different than the first average effective diameter.
In an analogous art for being directed to solve the same problem, providing various shapes of openings for an adhesive layer, Locke discloses a dressing 102 comprising a first adhesive layer 118 and a second adhesive layer 120 (¶0028 and Fig. 2). Locke further discloses/suggests the second adhesive layer is formed with a plurality of apertures/openings 124 having a first effective diameter 134 and a second effective diameter 138 (¶0065-0066)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Mercer in view of Locke by making a first portion of the plurality of holes has a first average effective diameter; and a second portion of the plurality of holes has a second average effective diameter, the second average effective diameter being different than the first average effective diameter, as suggested in ¶0065-0066 and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)). Further, one would have been motivated to have the second average effective diameter being different than the first average effective diameter for the purpose of permitting flow through the tissue interface. In addition, Applicant places no criticality on the claimed first average effective diameter and second average effective diameter (¶0076).
Allowable Subject Matter
The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter are similar to those presented in the Office Action filed on 06/20/2023 of Application number 17/620351.
Claim(s) 53 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 53, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a first plurality of circular bonds located at intersections of the plurality of intersecting linear bonds; and a second plurality of circular bonds displaced from intersections of the plurality of intersecting linear bonds. Examiner did not find any teachings/motivations to modify the apparatus to arrange/make the first plurality of circular bonds located at intersections of the plurality of intersecting linear bonds or to arrange/make the second plurality of circular bonds displaced from intersections of the plurality of intersecting linear bonds. There is not an apparent/obvious reason/motivation for this modification as this modification increases the complexity of the system in the prior art in terms of structure, function, and design (See MPEP §2143.01 (IV)).
No other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combining to render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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, SARAH AL-HASHIMI can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights