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 .
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 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the central plug" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting claim 8 to depend from claim 7.,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2020/112073 to Annamarie.
With regard to claims 1, 10, Annamarie discloses a bandage applicator comprising an elongated cylinder 114 configured to be inserted in a central lumen of a spool 114, handle 118 that can be telescoped for storage, and the handle is rotatable to the cylinder 114 (see FIGS 1, 1A, ¶0038, 0039, 0043).
With regard to claims 2-6, Annamarie discloses a locking mechanism 3, 7, to lock the handle into various releasably locked telescoped positions (see FIGS 2, 3, ¶0024, 0039-41).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/112073 to Annamarie in view of US 2018/0200202 to Joguparthi et al.
In the specification and figures, Annamarie suggests the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). With regard to claim 9, the cited prior art does not comprise an arrow indicator. The Examiner finds that the arrow indicator has a functional relationship to the dispenser apparatus, indicating in which direction a user should apply force to achieve a desired configuration. Joguparthi discloses a medicament dispenser with an arrow printed on the safety cap to indicate which direction a user should apply force to achieve a desired configuration. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add an arrow indicator as disclosed by Joguparthi to the dispenser disclosed by Annamarie in order to indicate to a user where to apply force, as taught by Joguparthi.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/112073 to Annamarie in view of KR 20210071644 to Yeong et al.
In the specification and figures, Annamarie suggests the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). With regard to claims 11-13, Yeong discloses a medicated wound dressing with an adhesive surface on a roller dispenser (see abstract, p2 of English translation, attached). Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Accordingly Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a medicated self-adhesive wound dressing as disclosed by Yeong on the roller apparatus disclosed by Annamarie because both elements are known in the art and simply put together.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/112073 to Annamarie in view of KR 20210071644 to Yeong et al, further in view of WO 2022/261201 to Perry.
In the specification and figures, the prior art suggests the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). With regard to claim 14, the prior art suggests a bandage with a medical composition, but not a blood-clot promoter. However, Perry discloses a wound dressing that seals a wound and promotes local clot formation (see Perry p11, lines 1-70). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a clot-forming medicament as disclosed by Perry to the bandage dispenser suggested by the prior art in order to promote clot formation, as taught by Perry.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/112073 to Annamarie in view of EP 1,845,035 to Pavlik.
In the specification and figures, the prior art suggests the apparatus substantially as claimed by Applicant (see rejections above). With regard to claim 16, the cited prior art fails to disclose a non-circular dispenser. However, Pavlik discloses a dispenser for web-like material (such as a bandage) wherein the dispenser may be semicircular, rectangular, or triangular, and the web material may not be in a roll (see ¶0107).
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. In the instant case, it would have been within the skill of a worker in the art at the time of filling to provide the bandage dispenser as disclosed by Annamarie with an irregular shape, as disclosed by Rodriguez, since both elements were known at the time of filing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Annamarie discloses the dispenser substantially as claimed by Applicant but does not disclose a tensioning element. GB 2,333,506 to Rodriguez discloses a bandage roller dispenser with a means to control the friction between the handle and the axle of the bandage roller in order to create tension, but does not disclose a central plug with a rod section and a dome section. As such, the prior art fails to suggest the combination of elements as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE R DEAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am to 5:30pm.
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.
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 4 December 2025