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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-20, and 44 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, and 15 are amended. Claim 44 is newly added. Claims 5 and 21-43 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Though overall the same prior art references are used herein, at least applicant’s amendment to
independent claim 1 required a change in the grounds of rejection as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanar (Publication No. US 2020/0086013 A1) in view of Wuerstlein et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0237963 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Quintanar teaches a negative pressure wound therapy system (system 100; Figure 1; Paragraph 0022) comprising:
a negative pressure source configured to provide negative pressure to a wound covered by a wound dressing and to aspirate fluid from the wound (negative pressure source 12C provides negative pressure to wound 14 covered by dressing 13 and to aspirate fluid from wound 14; Figure 1; Paragraph 0022-0023);
a housing (housing of TNP apparatus 11 for storing components; Paragraph 0036; Figure 2A); and
a circuit board enclosed by the housing (circuit board supports switch located within user interface 12D that comprises contacts 402/404/406/408 in housing of apparatus 11; Figures 4A-4B; Paragraph 0037, 0039, and 0047) and supporting a plurality of electronic components (electronic components such as 12A-12H is within housing of apparatus 11; Figure 1; Paragraph 0022-0023), the plurality of electronic components comprising control circuitry configured to control operation of the negative pressure source (electronic components 12A-12H comprise control circuitry 12A to control operation of negative pressure source 12C; Paragraph 0022-0024; Figure 1), the circuit board supporting a plurality of traces electrically connecting the plurality of electronic components (circuit board has traces of contacts 402/404/406/408 printed and connected to a plurality of electronic components, more specifically user interface 12D; Paragraph 0037, 0039, and 0047; Figures 4A-4B), the plurality of traces comprising a first set of traces configured to transmit one or more digital signals (primary and secondary traces of contacts 402/404/406/408; Paragraph 0047 transmit digital signals on the state of the switches SW1 and SW2; Figures 3A-3B and 4A-4B; Paragraphs 0039-0044 and 0046). Quintanar does not teach the plurality of traces comprising a second set of traces configured to transmit one or more analog signals,
the control circuitry further configured to:
detect a degradation of an electrical signal on at least one trace of the first or second set of traces, wherein the degradation of the electrical signal on the at least one trace is caused by a short circuit involving the at least one trace as a result of moisture ingress into the housing; and
responsive to detection of the degradation of the electrical signal, temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of negative pressure to the wound.
However, Wuerstlein teaches the circuit board supporting a plurality of traces electrically connecting the plurality of electronic components (circuit board 5 supports traces, including sensor electrodes 20; Figures 1 and 2; Paragraph 0057), the plurality of traces comprising a second set of traces configured to transmit one or more analog signals (sensors 20 is second set of traces that transmits analog voltage data; Figure 2; Paragraph 0057),
the control circuitry further configured to:
detect a degradation of an electrical signal on at least one trace of the first or second set of traces (resistance sensor 16 detects degradation of an electric signal when electrodes 20 are in contact with water, when ADC 32 measures 5V voltage when contacts 20 penetrate water, result is lower than when water is not penetrated, thus degradation of electrical signal; Paragraph 0054 and 0057; Figures 1 and 2), wherein the degradation of the electrical signal on the at least one trace is caused by a short circuit involving the at least one trace as a result of moisture ingress into the housing (degradation of electrical signal is caused by electrodes 20 in contact with water 22 which causes a short circuit; Paragraph 0057-0058; Figures 1-2); and
responsive to detection of the degradation of the electrical signal, temporarily or permanently deactivate system (Paragraph 0029; Claim 10).
Quintanar and Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based devices and Wuerstlein addresses a reasonably pertinent solution to the problem of detecting penetrating water in the electronics of the device which does not necessarily trigger a short circuit, similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar to incorporate the teachings of Wuerstlein to have the second set of traces of Wuerstlein to be connected onto the circuit board of Quintanar and is connected to the control circuitry of Quintanar to disable the system when water is detected, as taught by Wuerstlein. This allows for penetrating water into the electronics to be detected early, without the water necessarily causing a short circuit in the electronics (Wuerstlein; Paragraph 0006 and 0021) and to disable the system when water is detected (Wuerstlein; Paragraph 0029; Claim 10).
The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein further teaches responsive to detection of the degradation of the electrical signal, temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of negative pressure to the wound (deactivation of negative pressure to wound of Quintanar once degradation of electrical signal is detected by traces of Wuerstlein; see combination above; Wuerstlein; Paragraph 0029; Claim 10).
Regarding claim 2, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. Quintanar further teaches further comprising the wound dressing, wherein at least one of the negative pressure source or the circuit board is at least partially supported by the wound dressing (wound dressing 13 and negative pressure source 12C/circuit board connected to user interface 12D are structurally connected, thus supported; Figure 2A; Paragraph 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 3, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. Quintanar further teaches wherein the circuit board supports the negative pressure source (circuit board that is a part of user interface 12D supports negative pressure source 12C to run pressure source 12C through electrical connection and shared housing of apparatus 11; Figure 1; Paragraph 0037, 0039, and 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The claim limitation “wherein moisture ingress occurs as a result of the negative pressure source aspirating fluid from the wound” is a recitation of an intended use of the system. Although the prior art of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not expressly state “wherein moisture ingress occurs as a result of the negative pressure source aspirating fluid from the wound”, since the system of the prior art combination is substantially identical to the system of the claimed invention, it must also necessarily produce the same outcome. Therefore, the claim limitation is anticipated by the prior art combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. Wherein the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein further teaches wherein moisture ingress occurs as a result of the negative pressure source aspirating fluid from the wound (obvious that moisture ingress that causes water damage to electronics in the wound therapy system can be caused by negative pressure source 12C aspirating fluid from wound 13 of Quintanar; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein further teaches wherein the degradation of the electrical signal is caused by a short circuit between two traces from the first set of traces or between a trace from the first set of traces and ground or power (obvious that traces from the contacts of Quintanar can be damaged/broken due to moisture which can short circuit the contact with ground or power or with each other; Quintanar; Paragraphs 0040-0043).
Regarding claim 7, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 6. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein wherein the two traces from the first set of traces comprise portions not coated with waterproof material or the trace from the first set of traces comprises a portion not coated with waterproof material, and wherein the short circuit is formed due to liquid coming into contact with the portions not coated with waterproof material or the portion not coated with waterproof material.
However, Wuerstlein teaches wherein the two comprise portions not coated with waterproof material or the trace comprises a portion not coated with waterproof material (electrodes 20 are not electrically insulated and in direct contact with water to measure resistance; Paragraph 0010 and 0055), and wherein the short circuit is formed due to liquid coming into contact with the portions not coated with waterproof material or the portion not coated with waterproof material (short circuit can occur when electrodes 20 that are not electrically insulated are in contact with water; Paragraphs 0027-0030).
Quintanar and Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based devices and Wuerstlein addresses a reasonably pertinent solution to the problem of detecting penetrating water in the electronics of the device which does not necessarily trigger a short circuit, similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar to incorporate the teachings of Wuerstlein to have the first set of traces of Wuerstlein to be absent of waterproof/insulating material. This allows for the detection of water in the electronics which will disable the system as a safety measure (Wuerstlein; Paragraphs 0027-0030).
Regarding claim 8, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein a trace from the second set of traces corresponds to a feedback line of the negative pressure source, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal based at least in part on a short circuit on the feedback line.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a trace from the second set of the traces be arranged in the negative pressure source since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art since the device would not perform differently than the prior art device, whether having the trace in the user interface or the negative pressure source, with the common function at either locations of detecting moisture ingress in the electronics, in re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
The modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein further teaches wherein a trace from the second set of traces corresponds to a feedback line of the negative pressure source (a trace of Wuerstlein is arranged to be in the negative pressure source 12C of Quintanar that is in the housing of the TNP apparatus 11 of Quintanar, trace acts as a feedback line to detect moisture ingress at the negative pressure source location; see combination above), and wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal based at least in part on a short circuit on the feedback line (Wuerstlein; degradation of electrical signal is caused by electrode 20, arranged in the negative pressure source of Quintanar, in contact with water 22 which causes a short circuit; Paragraph 0057-0058; Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein the control circuitry is further configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal based on data obtained from one or more of: a humidity sensor; or an electronic fuse (eFuse).
However, Wuerstlein teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal based on data obtained from one or more of: a humidity sensor; or an electronic fuse (eFuse) (short circuit of electronic system triggers an associated fuse; Paragraph 0030; Claim 10).
Quintanar and Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based devices and Wuerstlein addresses a reasonably pertinent solution to the problem of detecting penetrating water in the electronics of the device which does not necessarily trigger a short circuit, similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Wuerstlein to have the fuse of Wuerstlein to be connected to the control circuitry and the traces of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the system to be deactivated to a secure state once water is detected in the electronics (Wuerstlein; Paragraph 0030; Claim 10).
Regarding claim 19, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein the control circuitry is further configured to provide an alarm responsive to the detection of the degradation of the electrical signal.
However, Wuerstlein teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to provide an alarm responsive to the detection of the degradation of the electrical signal (alert is given to user regarding detection of degradation of signal; Paragraph 0031; Claim 10).
Quintanar and Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based devices and Wuerstlein addresses a reasonably pertinent solution to the problem of detecting penetrating water in the electronics of the device which does not necessarily trigger a short circuit, similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Wuerstlein to have the alert function of Wuerstlein to be connected to the control circuitry and the traces at the user interface of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the user to be informed when the electronics are damaged so that the device can be fixed (Wuerstlein; Paragraph 0031; Claim 10).
Regarding claim 20, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein the control circuitry comprises a programmable controller configured to execute instructions that detect the degradation of the electrical signal and, responsive to detection of the degradation of the electrical signal, temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of negative pressure to the wound.
However, Wuerstlein further teaches wherein the control circuitry comprises a programmable controller configured to execute instructions that detect the degradation of the electrical signal (control circuitry has programmable instructions that allows for automatic measurement and detection of moisture; Paragraph 0054 and 0057-0058) and, responsive to detection of the degradation of the electrical signal, temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of system (control circuitry proceeds with a series of instructions to deactivate the system in response to water detection; Paragraph 0027-0031).
Quintanar and Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based devices and Wuerstlein addresses a reasonably pertinent solution to the problem of detecting penetrating water in the electronics of the device which does not necessarily trigger a short circuit, similar to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Wuerstlein to have the control circuitry of Quintanar to have the programmable instructions of Wuerstlein and connected to the traces at the user interface of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the system to automatically do a series of tasks in response to water being present in the electronics to protect the user (Wuerstlein; Paragraph 0027-0031). The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein further teaches responsive to detection of the degradation of the electrical signal, temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of negative pressure to the wound (control circuitry of Quintanar deactivates the delivery of negative pressure to the wound through the programmable instruction of Wuerstlein; see combination above).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanar (Publication No. US 2020/0086013 A1) in view of Wuerstlein et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0237963 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michna et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0153233 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein a trace from the second set of traces is part of a circuitry configured to detect excessive temperature, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal by determining that the circuitry configured to detect excessive temperature has made an incorrect detection of excessive temperature.
However, Michna teaches wherein a trace from the second set of traces is part of a circuitry configured to detect excessive temperature (circuit 106 with passive temperature sensors 108; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), and wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal by determining that the circuitry configured to detect excessive temperature has made an incorrect detection of excessive temperature (when threshold of temperature sensor is exceeded, it is an indication of a short circuit; Abstract; Paragraph 0015, 0034, and 0043).
Michna and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensor-based electronic circuitry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Michna to have the temperature sensors circuitry of Michna in the second set of traces of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for an effective monitoring of short circuiting without impacting the design of the device (Michna; Paragraph 0015 and 0036).
Regarding claim 10, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Michna teaches the system of claim 9. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Michna further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine that the circuitry configured to detect excessive temperature has made the incorrect detection of excessive temperature based on processing temperature detected by an additional temperature sensor (Michna; detection circuit detects abnormal increase in temperature by comparing sensor output of higher temperature with other temperature sensors through the comparator circuits; Figure 4; Paragraph 0023-0025 and 0037-0041).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanar (Publication No. US 2020/0086013 A1) in view of Wuerstlein et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0237963 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horai et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0064409 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach further comprising at least one battery, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to drain the at least one battery responsive to the detection of the degradation of the electrical signal.
However, Horai teaches further comprising at least one battery (battery 200; Paragraph 0044-0046), wherein the control circuitry is further configured to drain the at least one battery responsive to the detection of the degradation of the electrical signal (when short circuit is determined, battery 200 is discharged to the external resistor 130; Figure 1 and 3; Paragraph 0044-0046).
Horai and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic circuitry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Braga in view of Tang to incorporate the teachings of Horai to have the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to have the battery as the power source and have the external resistor and switch with the control unit instruction of battery drainage of Horai to be connected with the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein when the detection of degradation is detected by the circuitry Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the enhancement of safety by draining power from the defective device (Horai; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 12, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai teaches the system of claim 11. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai further teaches wherein the plurality of electronic components further comprise a resistor network and a switch (Horai; switch 140a and external resistor 130; Paragraph 0027 and 0044-0046; Figure 1 and 3), and wherein the control circuitry is configured to open the switch and drain the at least one battery through the resistor network (Horai; Paragraph 0027 and 0044-0046).
Regarding claim 18, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of negative pressure by one or more of: blowing a fuse; opening the fuse; opening a switch; or opening a relay.
However, Horai further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to temporarily or permanently deactivate provision of negative pressure by one or more of: blowing a fuse; opening the fuse; opening a switch; or opening a relay (when short circuit is determined, battery is discharged to the external resistor 130 by switch 140a; Figure 1 and 3; Paragraph 0027 and 0044-0046).
Horai and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electronic circuitry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Horai to have the power source of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to be a battery, as taught by Horai, and to have the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to have the external resistor and switch with the control unit instruction of battery drainage of Horai to be connected with the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein when the detection of degradation is detected by the circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the enhancement of safety by draining power from the defective device (Horai; Paragraph 0051).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanar (Publication No. US 2020/0086013 A1) in view of Wuerstlein et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0237963 A1) and Horai et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0064409 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kaito et al. (Publication No. US 2001/0044044 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai teaches the system of claim 11. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai further teaches wherein the plurality of electronic components further comprise a switch (Horai; when short circuit is determined, battery is discharged by switch 140a; Figure 1 and 3; Paragraph 0027 and 0044-0046). The combination Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai does not teach wherein the plurality of electronic components further comprise a conductive plane.
However, Kaito teaches wherein the plurality of electronic components further comprise a conductive plane (conductive plate 3b with resistor R allows for the discharge of battery; Paragraph 0027-0028; Figure 4).
Kaito and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery operated electronic circuitry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai to incorporate the teachings of Horai to have the control circuitry with the external resistor and switch of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Horai to have the conductive plate of Kaito. This allows for the redirection of the electrical charge from the battery to decrease the temperature of the device (Kaito; Paragraph 0011 and 0028).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanar (Publication No. US 2020/0086013 A1) in view of Wuerstlein et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0237963 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0177929 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein temporarily deactivating provision of negative pressure to the wound comprises preventing the negative pressure source from being activated to provide negative pressure to the wound for a first time period, and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to activate the negative pressure source to provide negative pressure to the wound at expiration of the first time period.
However, Adams teaches wherein temporarily deactivating provision of negative pressure to the wound comprises preventing the negative pressure source from being activated to provide negative pressure to the wound for a first time period (self-tests are initiated, if test fails, a retry state is initiated, where the negative pressure source is deactivated for a first time period – obvious that water in electronics can cause failure in self-test of electronics in the device, which can initiate the temporary deactivation in the retry state; Paragraph 0063-0064), and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to activate the negative pressure source to provide negative pressure to the wound at expiration of the first time period (if self-test passes in retry state, the control circuitry will activate the negative pressure source in initial pump down state after the expiration of the first time period; Paragraph 0064 and 0066-0067).
Adams and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative pressure wound therapy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Adams to have the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein perform self-tests with the retry state and initial pump down state, as taught by Adams. This allows for the system to determine if the electronics in the device are damaged or not and if the issue is resolved or not (Adams; Paragraph 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 15, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Adams teaches the system of claim 14. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein and Adams further teaches wherein the first time period corresponds to a time period for clearing an error caused by moisture ingress (Adams; if self-test passes in retry state after a time period of clearing the error/first time period, caused by moisture in electronics, the delivery negative pressure is enabled; Paragraph 0064 and 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 44, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein the plurality of electronic components further comprises a memory, wherein the first set of traces supports a digital communications protocol between the control circuitry and the memory, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal based at least in part on determining that the memory is inaccessible based on not receiving a response to a request to access the memory during a threshold period of time.
However, Adams teaches wherein the plurality of electronic components further comprises a memory (memory 314 is one of the electronic components 300; Paragraph 0056; Figure 3), wherein the first set of traces supports a digital communications protocol between the control circuitry and the memory (obvious that controller 302 and memory 314 have wiring to allow for digital communications between the two, such as exchanging data; Paragraph 0056; Figure 3), and wherein the control circuitry is configured to detect the degradation of the electrical signal based at least in part on determining that the memory is inaccessible based on not receiving a response to a request to access the memory during a threshold period of time (controller 302 performs self-test on memory 314 to check its function, obvious that when memory is not accessible, it is an indication that degradation of electrical signal occurred and will move to retry state for a threshold period of time; Paragraphs 0063-0064).
Adams and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative pressure wound therapy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Adams to have the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein perform self-tests with the retry state and initial pump down state, as taught by Adams, and have the memory and the digital trace/trace a part of the first set of traces of Adams to be connected to the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the system to determine if the memory component of the electronics in the device is damaged or not and if the issue is resolved or not (Adams; Paragraph 0063-0064).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanar (Publication No. US 2020/0086013 A1) in view of Wuerstlein et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0237963 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Askem et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0358372 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein does not teach wherein permanently deactivating provision of negative pressure to the wound comprises preventing the negative pressure source from being activated to provide negative pressure to the wound.
However, Askem teaches wherein permanently deactivating provision of negative pressure to the wound comprises preventing the negative pressure source from being activated to provide negative pressure to the wound (non-recoverable error is the state where the negative pressure source cannot be activated when a short circuit is detected; Paragraph 0235 and 0237).
Askem and Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of negative pressure wound therapy device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to incorporate the teachings of Askem to have the control circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein to have the permanent deactivation mode of Askem when the detection of degradation is detected by the circuitry of Quintanar in view of Wuerstlein. This allows for the deactivation of the device when electrical circuit defects arise (Askem; Paragraph 0237).
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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights