DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed October 27, 2025 and January 6, 2026. The specification and claims 1 and 29 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24-25, 28-30, 33, 45 and 47 are pending in the instant application.
The drawings were received on January 6, 2026 . These drawings are approved by the examiner.
In response to the amendment and the replacement drawings, the objections to the drawings and specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of the Amendment filed October 27, 2025, with respect to the 102(a)(1) of claims 1 and 22 as being anticipated by Aziz have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) of claim 1 and 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see pages 10-12 of the Amendment filed October 27, 2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24-25, 28-30, 33 and 45 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues the following:
“Claim 1 is amended to require, "the plurality of pressure-differentiating features
arranged in rows, wherein the rows are independently separated by about 4 mm
to about 20 mm." Even if a skilled artisan were motivated to include
pressure-differentiating features within the teachings of Sanghi in view of Berger,
the skilled artisan would it no way be motivated to include rows of said features
separated by about 4 mm to about 20 mm. Arguably, any such arrangement of
features would defeat the purpose of acupuncture therapy. Moreover, nothing
in the Berger disclosure teaches or suggest utilizing pressure-differentiating,
features in any arrangement, for treating or preventing edema.”
The Office disagrees and contends that Applicants’ specification does not state the criticality of the amount of separation between the rows, does not provide evidence of unexpected results, or provides evidence that the particular amount of separation between the rows solves a particular problem. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed amount of separation between the rows is significant, the Office concludes 1) the amount of separation between the rows is an obvious design choice; and 2) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention to have discovered through routine experimentation, the optimum separation distance between the rows, such that the rows are separated by an amount of about 4 mm to about 20 mm in order to provide pressure to additional acupressure points on the body.
In response to Applicants’ remarks regarding the rejection of claims 10 and 21, it is clear that claim 1 was rejected by Shanghi in view of Berger, and that claim 10 and 21 should have been rejected under Shanghi in view of Berger and further in view of Spannrit.
With respect to claim 24, the argument predicated on the assumption that claim 1 is nonobvious; however, the Office has not concluded such in light of the remarks presented above. Thus, the argument is moot.
With respect to claim 28, the rejection of claim 28 as being unpatentable over Aziz is moot since the rejection has been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 45, the argument predicated on the assumption that claim 1 is nonobvious; however, the Office has not concluded such in light of the remarks presented above. Thus, the argument is moot.
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 October 27, 2025 has been received and made of record. Note the acknowledged form PTO-1449 enclosed herewith.
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, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0120176 (“Sanghi et al.”) in view DE 4240952 (“Berger”).
Regarding claim 1, Sanghi et al. discloses a bandage (10, see para. [0038]) comprising: a primary layer (foam layer 12) comprising a continuous foam substrate (see Fig. 1 and para. [0039]); a secondary layer (elastic substrate 16) comprising a fibrous substrate (see para. [102]-[105] configured to overlay the primary layer (see Fig. 1 and para. [0075], which discloses the outer face of the inner bandage comprising the second face of the elongated elastic substrate).
Sanghi et al. fails to disclose a plurality of pressure-differentiating features, the plurality of pressure-differentiating features arranged in rows, wherein the rows are by about 4 mm to about 20 mm, and wherein the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are effective to provide localized areas of increased pressure when under compression.
However, Berger discloses a compression bandage (1) having a plurality of protuberances or beads or knobs (3, see the Abstract and Fig. 1) arranged in rows (the rows alternate from a row of two beads to a row of one bead) on a body side (2) of the bandage (see page 3, line 5 of the translation) and wherein the rows are independently separated (see Fig. 1). The plurality of protuberances or beads or knobs (3) are used to exert a force on acupressure points on the human body to relive pain (see page 1, line 18, page 2, lines 1-2 and 38-39 of the translation).
In view of, Berger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the bandage of Sanghi et al. to include a plurality of protuberances or beads or knobs arranged in rows on the body side of the bandage for the purpose of exerting a force on acupressure points on the human body to treat pain.
With respect to the amount of separation between the rows, Applicants must note that the specification does not state the criticality of the amount of separation between the rows, does not provide evidence of unexpected results, or provides evidence that the particular separation between the rows solves a particular problem. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed amount of separation between the rows is significant, the Office concludes Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed amount of separation between the rows is significant, the Office concludes 1) the amount of separation between the rows is an obvious design choice; and 2) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing date of the claimed invention to have discovered through routine experimentation, the optimum separation distance between the rows, such that the rows are separated by an amount of about 4 mm to about 20 mm in order to provide pressure to additional acupressure points on the body.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, characterized by one or more of: having a relaxed length of 2 to about 4.5 m long; however, the particular dimensions of the bandage depend in part on the particular limb being treated and/or particular patient (see para. [0089]).
Modified Sanghi et al. fails to disclose a relaxed length of about 1 m to about 5 m. However, it has been that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Since the disclosed length range of Sanghi et al. is within Applicant’s claimed range, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have constructed the bandage of modified Sanghi et al. having a length within the claimed range depending on the particular limb being treated.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1,wherein the foam substrate is one or more of: comprised of open-cell foam, closed-cell foam (see para. [0017]), or a combination thereof, and selected from polyurethane, carboxylated butadiene-styrene rubber, polyester, polyacrylate, polyether, polyolefin, polychloroprene, silicone, and a combination thereof (see para. [0018], which discloses the foams may be at least one of polyurethane, polyester and polyether).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sanghi et al. discloses bandage of claim 1, wherein one or more of: the primary layer has a width of at least about 30% of the width of the secondary layer (see para. [0039], which discloses the foam layer 12 can extend 33% or more across the face of substrate 16), and the primary layer has an average thickness of at least 1.6 mm.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, wherein the primary layer further comprises one or more of: at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features on one or more surfaces (note the rejection of claim 1 above, which indicated the plurality of protuberances or beads or knobs during modification are positioned on the body side of the bandage), and at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features within the foam substrate.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, wherein the fibrous substrate is one or more of: comprised of woven material, knitted material, warp-knit material, nonwoven material, or a combination thereof (see para. [0105], which discloses the elastic substrate is comprises a web including woven, knitted, warp-knit, or nonwoven fibrous webs), and selected from polyester, rayon, polyethyl acrylate, polyether-polyurea copolymer, and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 14, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1,wherein the fibrous substrate comprises one or more of: a polymeric binder (note para. [0103] which discloses the elastic substrate comprises a polymeric binder), and elastic filaments.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, wherein the fibrous substrate comprises two fibrous mats selected from woven and nonwoven, elastic filaments between the fibrous mats (see para. [0103] and para. [0105]), and a polymeric binder (see para. [0103]) selected from natural rubber latex, synthetic latex, acrylics, polyethyl acrylate, butadienes, styrene-butadiene rubbers, chloroprenes, ethylenes, isoprenes, nitrile, urethanes, and a combination thereof (see para. [0103].
Regarding claim 18, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, wherein the fibrous substrate is one or more of: self-adhering (see para. [0102], which discloses self-adhering), and elastic.
Regarding claim 22, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are defined by areas within the fibrous substrate having a greater thickness. However, Sanghi et al. discloses in para. [0037] that inner skin facing, elongated, elastic bandage (10) is the layer positioned near the skin. Berger teaches in the last para. of page 2 that knobs (3) are integral components of the dressing (1) and that they consist of highly compressible textile fabric or cellulose.
In view of Berger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have integrally incorporated pressure differentiating features into bandage (10), which comprises a foam layer (12) and a fibrous elastic substrate layer (16) in order to position the pressure differentiating features closed to the body part of the user.
Regarding claim 25, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are constructed from fibers, stitched fibers, yarns, fabrics, polymeric hot melts, foams, beads, or a combination thereof.
However, Berger further discloses the knobs (3) are integral components of the dressing 1. They consist of highly compressed textile fabric or cellulose (see page 2, lines 40-41 of the translation).
It has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have constructed the plurality of pressure-differentiating features from fabric since fabric material are both readily available and cost effective materials.
Regarding claim 28, modified Sanghi discloses the bandage of claim 1, but does not explicitly recite at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are effective to provide an increase in sub-bandage pressure from about 10 mmHg to about 120 mmHg with respect to portions of the bandage that are free of pressure-differentiating features when the bandage.
However, Berger discloses knobs (3) are integral components of dressing (1) and that the knobs (3) consist of highly compressed textile fabric or cellulose (see the last para. of page 2), the Office contends, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention that the wound knobs would be effective in providing at least an increase of about 10 mmHg, particularly when the knobs are compressively wrapped around the body part by the compression bandage.
Regarding claim 29, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are arranged such that the pressure- differentiating features together form a pattern selected from cross-hatch, brick, diamond lattice, hexagonal lattice, stacked equilateral triangles, packed circles, straight rows, chevron, zigzag, wavy chevron, waves, and a combination thereof.
However, Berger further discloses the plurality of knobs (3) are in what appear to be an equilateral triangular pattern in order to cover specific acupressure points to relieve pressure (see Fig. 1 and page 3, lines 35-39).
In view of Burger, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have provided the plurality of pressure-differentiating features in the pattern of an equilateral triangle in order to cover specific acupressure points for the purpose of relieving pressure.
Regarding claim 30, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein the plurality of pressure-differentiating features one or more of: extends over at least 30% of the width of the bandage, and extends over no more than 50% of the width of the bandage.
However, Berger, as can be seen from Fig. 1, extends over no more than what appears to be 50% of the width of bandage to target specific acupressure points see Fig. 1 and page 3, lines 35-39). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have provided the plurality of pressure-differentiating features over no more than 50% of the width of the bandage to specifically target specific acupressure point.
Regarding claim 33, modified Sanghi et al. discloses a method for reducing or preventing swelling in an extremity (see para. [0002], which discloses compression bandages are known for use in the treatment of edema) the method comprising: providing a bandage of claim 1 (see the discussion of claim 1 above); wrapping at least a portion of the extremity with the bandage, wherein the primary layer contacts a skin surface (see para. [0088], which discloses the inner bandage is applied by, e.g. spirally winding the bandage about a limb of a patient, with the foam layer (primary layer) facing the skin of the patient).
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sanghi in view of Berger as applied to claim 1, and further in view of DE 29911499 U1 (Spannrit).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are defined by areas within the foam substrate having a greater thickness (see Fig. 2 and page 1).
However, Spannrit, in an analogous device for treating a user comprises a layer of foam having raised pressure differentiating features (constituted by studs 4 and elevation 2, see Fig. 2 and page 6) defined by areas within the foam (i.e., within the upper side 5, see page 6 and Fig. 2). The studs and elevation assist in providing treatment to the user by stimulating nerves through acupressure, which stimulates blood circulation.
Absent a critical teaching and/or showing of unexpected results derived from the means by which the pressure differentiating features are presented on or within the bandage of the instant application, the Office contends that such means does not patentably distinguish Applicant invention. As such, in view of Spannrit, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the raised pressure differentiating features within the foam layer of modified Sanghi et al. as an alternative manufacturing means for providing pressure to a user.
Regarding claim 21, Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein the secondary layer comprising one or more of at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiation features on one or more surfaces, and at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are within the fibrous substrate.
However, Spannrit, in an analogous device for treating a user comprises a layer of foam having raised pressure differentiating features (constituted by studs 4 and elevation 2, see Fig. 2 and page 6) defined by areas within the foam (i.e., within the upper side 5, see page 6 and Fig. 2). The studs and elevation assist in providing treatment to the user by stimulating nerves through acupressure, which stimulates blood circulation.
Absent a critical teaching and/or showing of unexpected results derived from the means by which the pressure differentiating features are presented on or within the bandage of the instant application, the Office contends that such means does not patentably distinguish Applicant invention. As such, in view of Spannrit, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the raised pressure differentiating features within the foam layer of modified Sanghi et al. as an alternative manufacturing means for providing pressure to a user. Once modified a portion, namely, the bottom portion of the plurality of differentiation features are positioned on a top surface of the elastic substrate (16).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanghi et al. in view of Berger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,994 (“McNamera et al.”)
Regarding claim 24, modified Sanghi et al. discloses the bandage of claim 1, except wherein at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features are integrated between the primary layer and the secondary layer. However, McNamera et al. in its analogous compression device (constituted by sleeve 42, see Fig. 4b, Fig. 4c and col. 6, lines 36-47), comprising a primary layer (42) and a secondary layer (45), and a pressure node (compression rod) positioned therebetween (see col. 6, lines 66-67) for locating the pressure node at the appropriate position on the wearer (see col. 6, lines 39-42).
In view of McNamera et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to have constructed the modified bandage of Sanghi et al. in an alternate manner, such that the plurality of pressure-differentiating features positioned between the primary and secondary layer to both prevent them from being dislodged from bandage and to locate them at the appropriate position on the wearer.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanghi et al. in view of Berger as applied to claim 1 above, an in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,203,764 (“Libbey et al.”).
Regarding claim 45, modified Sanghi et al. discloses a kit (see para. [0086] comprising: the bandage (inner bandage 10) of a claim 1; and a compression substrate (elastic bandage 20, see Fig. 2 and para. [0091]). Modified Sanghi et al. fails to discloses a set of directing a user to wrap an extremity with the bandage and the compression substrate (see para. [0088]).
Modified Sanghi et al. fails to provide a set of instructions directing a user to wrap an extremity with the bandage and the compression substrate. However, Libbey et al., in its disclosure of an analogous bandage teaches it is known to provide a kit comprising instructions for use.
In view of Libbey et al., it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instruction in the kit of modified Sanghi et al. in order to teach one how to use the components of the kit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 47 is 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: as can be read from the rejection of claim 1 above, the bandage as claimed in claim 1 is rendered obvious by Sanghi et al. in view of Berger; however, neither Sanghi et al. nor Berger disclose the steps of folding portions of a continuous foam substrate to provide folded segments and adhering the folded segments to form at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features. Additionally, the prior art do not teach or render obvious the steps of folding portions of a continuous foam substrate to provide folded segments and adhering the folded segments to form at least a portion of the plurality of pressure-differentiating features, in combination with the recited features of claim 1.
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 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
Prosecution Insights