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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/29/2026 is accepted and entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges, on page 7 of the remarks, that Caneppele does not disclose wherein at least two adjacent arc-shaped incisions of the multiplicity of spaced apart ac-shaped incisions have a spacing of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm from one another. Applicant alleges that the interpretation used in the Office Action “encompasses the possibility that incisions cross each other” with the distance between mid-points being greater than 0 mm. Applicant alleges that because of this possibility, the term “spacing” would lead to configurations of neighboring incisions which cannot be understood to be “spaced apart.” However, this argument is not found persuasive. Although the interpretation of “spacing” being used does allow for the possibility of crossing incisions, the rest of the claim language precludes that possibility by indicating that the incisions are spaced apart from one another. These two limitations, together, limit the interpretation to incisions that are spaced apart (i.e. not touching or intersecting), and provides for multiple interpretations of spacing measurements (i.e. center to center spacing, spacing between end points, the spacing between the two closest points of each line, i.e. the minimum spacing).
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill would understand the term “spacing” in the claim as relating to the term “spaced apart” and would recognize that the term “spaced apart” would refer to the distance between separate incisions and the spacing between the commonly understood distance therebetween and not as the distance “between arbitrary points.” While it is agreed that the use of both the terms “spaced apart” and “spacing” in the claim indicates that these terms are referring to the distance between separate incisions, Applicant’s arguments regarding the interpretation of the spacing is not found persuasive. Applicant states “the term “spaced apart” as referring to the distance between separate incisions and the spacing being the commonly understood distance therebetween” (emphasis in original). However, the “distance therebetween” does not limit the claim to the minimum distance between any point on one incision and any point on another incision. There are multiple ways of measuring the distance between two points. On-center spacing is a well known type of spacing that measures the distance between the center points of two objects. Based on the claim language as present, it is fully within the scope of the claim to interpret the “spacing” between the incisions as the on-center spacing. It would also be fully within the scope of the claim to interpret the spacing as the distance between leftmost endpoint of one incision and rightmost endpoint of the other incision, or bottommost end point of one incision and topmost endpoint of the other incision, or to find the minimum distance between any two points on the line. Additionally, Applicant argues that the specification’s description of the “spacing relates to the minimum distance between two points lying on the respective two arc-shaped incisions spaced apart from one another, i.e, between a first point lying on a first arc-shaped incision and a second point lying on a second incision spaced apart from the first arc-shaped incision” (emphasis in original), and that therefore one of ordinary skill would necessarily interpret the claimed spacing as the minimum distance achievable between two arc-shaped incisions. However, this is not found persuasive. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant alleges, on page 8 of the remarks, that Caneppele does not disclose the claimed spacing of the incisions is measured along the machine direction of the nonwoven, and argues that the longitudinal direction B shown in Fig. 2 is the longitudinal direction of the dressing rather than the longitudinal direction of the layer of material 11. However, this is not found persuasive. Caneppele is directed to a wound dressing having improved extensibility and conformability (¶ [0002]), and indicates that the dressing 10 is formed by layer 11 (¶ [0032]). ¶ [0088-0100] discuss various stretch or extension force measurements, each of these paragraphs specifying that the results are obtained by applying a specific force along “such as at least one of the longitudinal B or transverse A directions of the layer of material 11” (emphasis added). Since ¶ [0100] explicitly states the “term “longitudinal” direction refers to the machine direction of the layer of material when formed using a continuous manufacturing process” (emphasis added) it is clear that the longitudinal direction B of the layer 11 is the machine direction of the layer of material, and that the longitudinal direction B in Fig. 2A does not refer solely to the machine direction of the dressing 10 as a whole.
Applicant did not specifically argue the dependent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 32-35, 39-43, 46-48, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caneppele et al (US 2018/0289559) in view of Feng et al (CN 213465619; references made to translation supplied with the IDS dated 04/10/2025)
Regarding Claim 32, Caneppele discloses a wound dressing (10, Fig. 2/2A) comprising:
a nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2) that includes a plurality of fibers (¶ [0032, 0062]);
wherein a majority of the fibers are aligned in a machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2; ¶ [0100]);
wherein the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2/2A) has at least one arc-shaped incision (material free regions 15, Fig. 2/2A; ¶ [0041] indicates the material free regions are slits);
wherein a tangent applied to the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2/2A) has an angle of between 30 degrees and 150 degrees to the machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2/2A; ¶ [0048] indicates the slits can be arranged on a diagonal such as 45 degrees from the machine direction, and therefore there would be a tangent line of the incision that also is at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the machine direction);
wherein the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2/2A) is doubly rotationally symmetrical with respect to an axis that runs perpendicular to a planar extension of the wound dressing (¶ [0043] indicates the slits are S-shaped, and the letter S meets this claim limitation); and
wherein the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2/2A) is an S-shaped incision (¶ [0043] indicates the slits are S-shaped),
wherein the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2) has a multiplicity of arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2) that are spaced apart from one another (¶ [0043, 0045]), and
wherein at least two adjacent arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2A), of the multiplicity of spaced apart arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2A), have a spacing of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm from one another (¶ [0055] indicates w’ is in the range of 2.5 to 10 mm; w’ corresponds to the claimed spacing as Applicant’s specification, see for example ¶ [0017] of the published application, indicates that the spacing is “the minimum distance between two points lying on the respective two arc-shaped incisions spaced apart from one another, i.e. between a first point lying on a first arc-shaped incision and a second point lying on a second incision spaced apart from the first arc-shaped incision”), wherein the spacing of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm is measured along the machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2; ¶ [0055] indicates w’ is in the range of 2.5 to 10 mm, and w’ extends in the longitudinal/machine direction as seen in Fig. 2/2A and indicated in ¶ [0100] which states that the longitudinal direction refers to the machine direction of the layer of material, not of the dressing itself).
Caneppele is silent whether a radius of curvature of the at least one arc-shaped incision is between 3 mm and 10 mm.
Feng teaches a wound dressing, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent layer comprising an S-shaped incision, where the radius of curvature ranges from 2mm to 8mm (¶ [0007, 0028]), specifically a radius of curvature of 5 mm (¶ [0008, 0028]). This radius of curvature was found to improve the stretchability and wearing comfort of the wound dressing (¶ [0004, 0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature of the at least one arc-shaped incision of Caneppele to be 5 mm, as taught by Feng. Feng indicates that a radius of curvature of an S-shaped incision of 5 mm improves the stretchability and wearing comfort of the wound dressing (¶ [0004, 0017, 0028]), and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings to Caneppele who also seeks to improve the stretchability and wearing comfort of the wound dressing.
Regarding Claim 33, Caneppele further discloses the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2A) has a length (l, Fig. 2A) in a range of between 1 mm to 15 mm (¶ [0051]).
Regarding Claim 34, Caneppele further discloses a length between a first end point of the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2A) and a second end point of the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2A) is between 0.5 mm and 12 mm (since the length of the incision can range from 1 to 10 mm, the length between the first end point and the second end point of the incision will also range from 1 to 10 mm which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 35, Caneppele further discloses a straight line that runs through a first end point of the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2A) and a second end point of the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2A) has an angle of between 30 degrees to 150 degrees to the machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2; ¶ [0048]).
Regarding Claim 39, Caneppele further discloses the at least two adjacent arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2A) also have a spacing of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm measured along a direction orthogonal to the machine direction (¶ [0055] indicates w’ is in the range of 2.5 to 10 mm, and d can be equal to w’ and extends orthogonal to w’, and w’ extends in the longitudinal/machine direction as seen in Fig. 2/2A and indicated in ¶ [0100]).
Regarding Claim 40, Caneppele further discloses at least two arc-shaped incisions, spaced apart from one another, of the multiplicity of arc-shaped incisions have an overlap of between 0.1 mm and 5 mm as measured along the machine direction (Fig. 2A, ¶ [0051]; the overlap between two adjacent incisions can be considered the width of one of the incisions, as the alternating pattern of incisions has horizontally oriented incisions adjacent and on top of vertically oriented incisions, and as such the width of the vertically oriented incision is the extend of overlap between those two incisions in the machine/horizontal direction, and the width can be in the range of 3 mm to 4 mm).
Regarding Claim 41, Caneppele further discloses respective arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2) of the multiplicity of arc-shaped incisions have an identical shape to one another (¶ [0043], Fig. 2/2A).
Regarding Claim 42, Caneppele further discloses the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Figs. 2, 6, and 7) has a peripheral region and a central region, and wherein the peripheral region or the central region has the multiplicity of arc-shaped incisions (15, Figs. 2, 6, and 7; ¶ [0056], both the peripheral region and the central region comprise a plurality of the slits 15, and the claim does not require that one region has the incisions and the other region does not have the incisions).
Regarding Claim 43, Caneppele further discloses the arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2) of the multiplicity of arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2) are distributed uniformly over the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2; the pattern is uniformly distributed over the layer as seen in Figs. 2, 6, and 7).
Regarding Claim 46, Caneppele discloses a wound bandage (10, Figs. 2/2A and 7) comprising:
a wound dressing that includes:
a nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2) that includes a plurality of fibers (¶ [0032, 0062]);
wherein a majority of the fibers are aligned in a machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2; ¶ [0100]);
wherein the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2/2A) has at least one arc-shaped incision (material free regions 15, Fig. 2/2A; ¶ [0041] indicates the material free regions are slits);
wherein a tangent applied to the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2/2A) has an angle of between 30 degrees and 150 degrees to the machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2/2A; ¶ [0048] indicates the slits can be arranged on a diagonal such as 45 degrees from the machine direction, and therefore there would be a tangent line of the incision that also is at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the machine direction);
wherein the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2/2A) is doubly rotationally symmetrical with respect to an axis that runs perpendicular to a planar extension of the wound dressing (¶ [0043] indicates the slits are S-shaped, and the letter S meets this claim limitation); and
wherein the arc-shaped incision (15, Fig. 2/2A) is an S-shaped incision (¶ [0043] indicates the slits are S-shaped),
wherein the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2) has a multiplicity of arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2) that are spaced apart from one another (¶ [0043, 0045]), and
wherein at least two adjacent arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2A), of the multiplicity of spaced apart arc-shaped incisions (15, Fig. 2A), have a spacing of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm from one another (¶ [0055] indicates w’ is in the range of 2.5 to 10 mm; w’ corresponds to the claimed spacing as Applicant’s specification, see for example ¶ [0017] of the published application, indicates that the spacing is “the minimum distance between two points lying on the respective two arc-shaped incisions spaced apart from one another, i.e. between a first point lying on a first arc-shaped incision and a second point lying on a second incision spaced apart from the first arc-shaped incision”), wherein the spacing of between 0.5 mm and 10 mm is measured along the machine direction of the nonwoven fabric layer (11, Fig. 2; ¶ [0055] indicates w’ is in the range of 2.5 to 10 mm, and w’ extends in the longitudinal/machine direction as seen in Fig. 2/2A and indicated in ¶ [0100] which states that the longitudinal direction refers to the machine direction of the layer of material, not of the dressing itself).
Caneppele is silent whether a radius of curvature of the at least one arc-shaped incision is between 3 mm and 10 mm.
Feng teaches a wound dressing, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent layer comprising an S-shaped incision, where the radius of curvature ranges from 2mm to 8mm (¶ [0007, 0028]), specifically a radius of curvature of 5 mm (¶ [0008, 0028]). This radius of curvature was found to improve the stretchability and wearing comfort of the wound dressing (¶ [0004, 0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature of the at least one arc-shaped incision of Caneppele to be 5 mm, as taught by Feng. Feng indicates that a radius of curvature of an S-shaped incision of 5 mm improves the stretchability and wearing comfort of the wound dressing (¶ [0004, 0017, 0028]), and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings to Caneppele who also seeks to improve the stretchability and wearing comfort of the wound dressing.
Regarding Claim 47, Caneppele further discloses the wound bandage further comprises a carrier layer (backing layer 20, Fig. 7; ¶ [0176-0179]) which is a layer comprising polyurethane (¶ [0178]).
Regarding Claim 48, Caneppele further discloses the carrier layer (backing layer 20, Fig. 7) is waterproof (¶ [0176, 0179]).
Regarding Claim 50, Caneppele further discloses the layer comprising polyurethane comprises polyurethane foam (¶ [0178]).
Claim(s) 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caneppele et al (US 2018/0289559) in view of Feng et al (CN 213465619) further in view of Riesinger (US 2014/0135721).
Regarding Claims 44 and 45, Caneppele/Feng is silent whether the nonwoven fabric layer comprises a superabsorbent polymer embodied in particulate or fibrous form.
Riesinger teaches a wound dressing, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a nonwoven layer having a pattern of incisions, where the nonwoven layer contains superabsorbent polymers (¶ [0018]) embodied in particulate or fibrous form (¶ [0023]). Superabsorbent particles can leak from the incisions to remoisten the wound, allowing for improved wound healing (¶ [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nonwoven fabric layer of Caneppele/Feng to comprise a superabsorbent polymer embodied in particulate or fibrous form, as taught by Riesinger, to allow for improved wound healing via remoistening of the wound through superabsorbent leakage through the incisions (as motivated by Riesinger ¶ [0016]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize a superabsorbent polymer in a wound dressing to improve the absorbent capacity of the dressing.
Claim(s) 49, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caneppele et al (US 2018/0289559) in view of Feng et al (CN 213465619) further in view of Ahsani et al (US 2018/0133066).
Regarding Claims 49 and 52, Caneppele/Feng is silent regarding a superabsorbent layer including a superabsorbent polymer, wherein the superabsorbent layer comprises at least one arc-shaped incision.
Ahsani teaches a wound dressing, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a nonwoven layer (distributing layer 11, Fig. 2; ¶ [0100]) with a plurality of incisions (15, Fig. 2) and a superabsorbent layer (retaining layer 12, Fig. 2; ¶ [0100]) including a superabsorbent polymer (¶ [0100]) comprising the same plurality of incisions (15, Fig. 2; ¶ [0101]). Having a superabsorbent layer improves the fluid capacity of the dressing, and including incisions in the superabsorbent layer improves the flexibility of the superabsorbent layer and the dressing as a whole (¶ [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the bandage of Caneppele/Feng to include a superabsorbent layer including a superabsorbent polymer, wherein the superabsorbent layer comprises at least one incision, as taught by Ahsani to improve the fluid capacity and flexibility of the dressing (as motivated by Ahsani ¶ [0008]). Since the incisions of Ahsani are the same in both the superabsorbent and nonwoven layers, the combination of Caneppele/Feng/Ahsani would have the same incisions in both the superabsorbent and nonwoven layers, and therefore the superabsorbent layer would comprise the same arc-shaped incisions as the nonwoven layer of Caneppele/Feng. This is further motivated by Caneppele, who indicates in ¶ [0174] that any additional layers added to the dressing can also comprise the S-shaped incisions as the nonwoven layer.
Regarding Claim 51, Caneppele/Feng is silent regarding a wound contact layer comprising silicone.
Ahsani teaches a silicone wound contact layer (3, Fig. 2; ¶ [0096]) to allow the dressing to adhere to the patient’s skin (¶ [0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the bandage of Caneppele/Feng to include a silicone wound contact layer, as taught by Ahsani, to allow the dressing to adhere to the patient’s skin (as motivated by Ahsani ¶ [0095]).
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 Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781