Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/680,583

TWO-PART WOUND DRESSING

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 31, 2024
Examiner
LEWIS, KIM M
Art Unit
3786
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Avant-Garde Medical Innovation, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
732 granted / 994 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1019
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 994 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed May 31, 2024 has been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes “The subject invention to”, which ca be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5, line 32, “and” should read --, and further comprises--; claim 5, line 36, “and a” should read --, and further comprises a--; and claim 5, lines 42 “the elements” should read --elements--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “highly” absorbent in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the phrase “highly absorbent” is indefinite in that the degree of absorbency cannot be ascertained. Regarding claim 8, line 1, “the adhesive portion” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 12, line 2, “the slits” lack proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 12, the recitation of the claims cell foam is indefinite in that it is unclear as to which layer of closed cell foam Applicant refers. The remaining claims are necessarily rejected by virtue of their dependence either directly or indirectly on claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15, which depends on claim 11 recites “independently wrapping the top dressing closed cell foam and bottom dressing closed cell foam is wrapped around the surgical tube”; thus, the recitation of “the closed form is wrapped around the surgical tube” does not further limit claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: wound dressings for creating an air tight seal around a wound, comprising a top dressing layer, closed cell foam, a release liner and hydrogel are known as demonstrated by U.S. Patent No. 4,909,244 to Quarfoot et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0295173 to Wright et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,710,289 to Russell et al., and U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0184294 to Locke et al. U.S. Patent No. 4,917,112 to Kalt, U.S. Patent No. 5,000,741 to Kalt and U.S. Patent No. 5,308,339 to Kalt et al. disclose dressings with a slit to wrap around a tube. The prior art fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the combination of elements specifically presented in claim 1, including a bottom dressing layer comprising a bottom dressing closed cell foam; a first bottom dressing hydrogel; a bottom dressing closure carrier; a second bottom dressing hydrogel; (i) a bottom dressing release liner, in combination with a combined liner between a top dressing layer and the bottom dressing layer as presented in claim 1. Further, it would not have been obvious to combine the elements recited in the top dressing layer and the bottom dressing layer, to arrive at Applicants’ recited invention in claim 1, other than hindsight reasoning. Claims 2-20, which depend from claim 1 further contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM M LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 5:30 am -11:30 am. 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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. /KIM M LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599693
AUGMENTED THERMOSET POLYMER SPONGES FOR IN SITU HEMOSTATIC TREATMENT OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL WOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589188
HYDROGELS FOR IN SITU-FORMING TISSUE CONSTRUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569370
Moisture sensing wound dressing
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564356
TWO-LAYER TENSION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR COMPRESSION GARMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544275
COMPRESSION WRAP WITH A STARTING PORTION FORMED AS A TONGUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+12.9%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 994 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month