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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 11 and 30 in the response filed on 12/18/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 10-16, 18-25, 28, and 30-31 are still pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 5, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the objections of claims 11 and 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12, 13-16, 24-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see arguments below.
Applicant argues “Cotton does not mention superabsorbent fibres at all. Cotton does not contain any hint or suggestion of a combination of substances in the superabsorbent material; let alone a blend with polyester fibres. The structure and composition of the wound dressing specified by claim 1 advantageously provides improved fluid retention performance and conformability. In particular, it is noted that the advantages are provided in a wound dressing that can also be cut, e.g. by a practitioner prior to application, without compromising the performance of the dressing, as described at paragraph
[0119] of the instant application as published (Pub. No. US2024/0325207) …” and “Because the encapsulated crystalline particles of Cotton would be compromised upon being cut, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to look to the encapsulated solid crystalline structure of Cotton to teach a wound dressing of superabsorbent fibers that can be cut”; however, examine respectfully disagrees. In Cotton, it was disclosed that the absorbent body can comprise of any superabsorbent material and that it may be used in particulate form. The term “may be” does not mean it has to be used in particulate form and that it was disclosed as an example in Cotton. Cotton was used disclose the structure of the instant application, such as the wound dressing, backing layer, wound contact layer, and the superabsorbent layer in independent claim 1 while Adie was used to teach the blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., allowing the wound dressing to be cut prior to use with SAF and improved conformity with SAF) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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 argues “Because the encapsulated crystalline particles of Cotton would be compromised upon being cut, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to look to the encapsulated solid crystalline structure of Cotton to teach a wound dressing of superabsorbent fibers that can be cut. As conceded by the Office Action on Page 4, Steven also fails to teach or suggest a superabsorbent layer comprising a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres” and “Steven teaches away from the present invention. Paragraph [0044] teaches that an internal wound dressing layer should be made to have only one type of fibre. Thus the skilled person would have no motivation to include a layer comprising multiple fibre types, let alone a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres as required by granted Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would not be motivated by Steven to consider a blend of polyester fibers with sodium polyacrylate fibers”; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Steven was used to teach an analogous wound contact layer that is made of a gel forming fiber, not the superabsorbent layer in independent claim 1; Cotton was used to disclose the superabsorbent layer. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues “Additionally, Adie does not teach or suggest the inclusion of a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres”; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Adie teaches an absorbent layer (which is an analogous to the superabsorbent layer of Cotton) that is made up of multiple fibres and contains super-absorber particles/fibres (page 9, lines 23-25). The absorbent layer is made of polyester fibres and sodium polyacrylate fibres (page 9, lines 17-25), which reads on the claim language of independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 13-16, 24-25, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) and in further view of Adie et al. (WO 2011135286 A1), with extrinsic evidence provided by “ConvaTec” for the rejection of claims 24 and 25.
Regarding claim 1, Cotton discloses a wound dressing (100 - figure 1, a dressing: page 25, lines 1-21) comprising: a backing layer (140 - see annotated figure 1, a porous polyurethane backing layer: page 26, lines 4-11); a wound contact layer (120 - see annotated figure 1, a perforated film: page 25, lines 15-21) having a first surface for directly contacting a wound bed (A - see annotated figure 1, a first surface of the wound contact layer that directly contacts the wound: page 4, lines 9-12) and a second surface facing the backing layer (B - see annotated figure 1, a second surface facing the backing layer [140]); and, a superabsorbent layer (110 - see annotated figure 1, the absorbent body can contain a superabsorbent material: page 15, lines 17-18), wherein the superabsorbent layer (110) is located between the backing layer (140) and the second surface of the wound contact layer (B) (see annotated figure 1, the superabsorbent layer [110] is between the backing layer [140] and the second surface of the wound contact layer [B]).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1: wound dressing of Cotton
However, Cotton fails to disclose the wound contact layer comprising gel forming fibers; wherein the superabsorbent layer comprises a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres.
Steven et al. teaches an analogous wound contact layer (104 – figure 1A, a wound contact layer: paragraph 0017) comprising gel forming fibers (the wound contact layer [104] is a gelling fiber wound contact layer: paragraph 0017).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the wound contact layer of Cotton with gel forming fibers as taught by Steven et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved wound contact layer suitable for optimal healing environment for various types of wounds and help absorb wound exudates (paragraph 0002/0046, Steven et al.).
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. fails to disclose wherein the superabsorbent layer comprises a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres.
Adie et al. teaches wherein the superabsorbent layer (110 – figure 1, a layer of absorbent material which comprises superabsorbent material: page 9, lines 4-29) comprises a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres (the superabsorbent layer [110] can comprise a mixture of absorbent fibers and absorbent particles such as polyester fibers and sodium polyacrylate fibers: page 9, lines 17-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the superabsorbent layer of Cotton in view of Steven et al. with a blend of sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres as taught by Adie et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved superabsorbent layer that can absorb multiple of its own weight of liquids (page 9, lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 2, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer (110) has an outer profile and the wound contact layer (120) has a corresponding outer profile which is in register with the outer profile of the superabsorbent layer (see annotated figure 1, the superabsorbent layer [110] and wound contact layer [120] are both substantially rectangular and are of identical length and width; they are both bonded together [aligned]: page 25, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 13, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses a wound-site adhesive layer (130 – see annotated figure 1, a skin contact layer comprising of silicone gel: page 25, lines 23-27) for adhering the wound dressing (100) at a wound site (see annotated figure 1, the wound-site adhesive layer [130] adheres the wound dressing [100] via attaching to the peri-wound skin: page 27, lines 31-33), wherein the adhesive layer (130) comprises a border region (J – see annotated figure 1, border region of the adhesive layer) which surrounds the wound contact layer (120) (see annotated figure 1/figure 2, the border region of the adhesive layer [J] surrounds the wound contact layer [120]).
Regarding claim 14, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Cotton further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (130) extends continuously across the first surface of the wound contact layer (A) (the adhesive layer [130] can extend across the first surface of the wound contact layer [A]: page 20, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 15, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Cotton further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (130) comprises perforations (135 – figure 2/figure 3, the adhesive layer [130] are also formed with perforations: page 26, lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 16, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12. Cotton further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (130) comprises a silicone adhesive (the adhesive layer [130] comprises a silicone adhesive: page 19, lines 14-29/page 25, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 24, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Steven et al. further teaches wherein the analogous wound contact layer (104) comprises a cellulose fiber (the wound contact layer [104] is made of HYDROFIBER®, which is made of Sodium Carboxymethyl-cellulose [as evidenced by ConvaTec]).
Regarding claim 25, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 24. Steven et al. further teaches wherein the wound contact layer (104) comprises carboxymethylated cellulose fibers (the wound contact layer [104] is made of HYDROFIBER®, which is made of Sodium Carboxymethyl-cellulose [as evidenced by ConvaTec]).
Regarding claim 28, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the backing layer (140) comprises a polyurethane material (the backing layer [140] can be made of polyurethane film: page 21, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 30, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. fails to disclose wherein the ratio of the sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres is between 40:60 to 55:45.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the ratio of the sodium polyacrylate fibres and polyester fibres to be between 40:60 to 55:45 so that the superabsorbent layer can absorb multiple of its own weight of body fluids (page 9, lines 23-29, Adie et al.), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that ratio “may be” within the claimed ranges (written specification: page 24, lines 16-19).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) in view of Adie et al. (WO 2011135286 A1) and in further view of Rivest (US 20190192352 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie fails to disclose a foam layer located between the backing layer and the second surface of the wound contact layer.
Rivest teaches a foam layer (16a – see annotated figure 2, a foam layer made of polyvinyl alcohol foam: paragraph 0042) located between an analogous backing layer (12 – see annotated figure 2, a translucent/transparent top film: paragraph 0034) and an analogous second surface of the wound contact layer (C – see annotated figure 2, a second surface of the wound contact layer that faces away from the wound: paragraph 0038) (see annotated figure 2, the foam layer [16a] is between the backing layer [12] and second surface of the wound contact layer [C]).
PNG
media_image2.png
415
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2: wound dressing of Rivest
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the backing layer and second surface of the wound contact layer of Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. with a foam in between as taught by Rivest in order to provide an improved wound dressing to absorb substantial fluid from a wound without requiring frequent replacement of the wound dressing and promote comfort while using the wound dressing (paragraph 0037/0042, Rivest).
Regarding claim 4, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3. Rivest et al. further teaches wherein the foam layer (16a) has a foam layer outer profile which corresponds with and is in register with an outer profile of an analogous superabsorbent layer (16 – see annotated figure 2, a layer that is made of silicone in combination with superabsorbent polymers: paragraph 0037/0042) (see annotated figure 2, the foam layer [16a] and superabsorbent layer [16] have the same outer profile and are aligned with each other).
Regarding claim 5, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3. Rivest et al. further teaches wherein the foam layer (16a) is located between the analogous backing layer (12) and the analogous superabsorbent layer (16) (see annotated figure 2, the foam layer [16a] is between the backing layer [12] and superabsorbent layer [16]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) in view of Adie et al. (WO 2011135286 A1) and in further view of Riesinger (WO 2009019229 A2).
Regarding claim 6, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. fails to discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer comprises non-woven fibers.
Riesinger teaches wherein an analogous superabsorbent layer (1/14 – figure 1a, an absorbent core that is in a form of an airlaid mat and comprises fibers and superabsorbent powder particles: paragraph 0140-0141) comprises non-woven fibers (the term “airlaid” refers to a special nonwoven fabric made of cellulose and polyolefin fibers: paragraph 0108/0140).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the superabsorbent layer of Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. with non-woven fibers as taught by Riesinger in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved superabsorbent layer to allow the superabsorbent fibers to be processed into nonwovens easily and allow the superabsorbent fibers within the superabsorbent layer to be brought much closer to the wound bed (paragraph 0046, Riesinger).
Regarding claim 7, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Riesinger discloses the invention as discussed in claim 6. Riesinger further teaches wherein the analogous superabsorbent layer (1) comprises non-woven fibers only (the superabsorbent layer [1] is made of only the nonwoven fabric [consisting of cellulose and polyolefin fibers]: paragraph 0108/0140).
Claims 10-12 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) in view of Adie et al. (WO 2011135286 A1) and in further view Hoggarth et al. (US 20180125722 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer (110) comprises a first surface facing the wound contact layer (G – see annotated figure 1, first surface of the superabsorbent layer facing the wound contact layer [120]) and a second surface facing the backing layer (H – see annotated figure 1, a second surface facing the backing layer [140]).
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. fails to disclose the superabsorbent layer first surface comprising an intra-layer adhesive.
Hoggarth et al. teaches an analogous superabsorbent layer first surface (I – see annotated figure 3, first surface of the superabsorbent layer facing the wound contact layer [2 – see annotated figure 3]: paragraph 0095) comprising an intra-layer adhesive (3 – see annotated figure 3, a layer of meltable adhesive: paragraph 0095).
PNG
media_image3.png
264
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3: wound dressing of Hoggarth et al.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first surface of the superabsorbent layer of Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. with an intra-layer adhesive as taught by Hoggarth et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved first surface to ensure that the layers of the dressings have a strong bond and will not break when the dressings get with wound fluid during use (paragraph 0097, Hoggarth et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Hoggarth et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10. Cotton further discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer second surface (H) is configured to be movable relative to the backing layer (140) (the second surface of the superabsorbent layer [H] is capable of moving relative to the backing layer [140] because the superabsorbent layer [110] is not adhered to the backing layer [140] to better provide for swelling of the superabsorbent layer [110]: page 26, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 12, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Hoggarth et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 11. Cotton further discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer (110) contacts the backing layer (140) (see annotated figure 1, the superabsorbent layer [110] contacts the backing layer [140]: page 15, lines 11-12) and wherein the backing layer (140) comprises an adhesive border region (130 – see annotated figure 1, skin contact layer: page 25, lines 23-27) which surrounds a non-adhesive central region (135 – see annotated figure 1, a central opening of the adhesive border region [130]: page 25, lines 30-31) in which the superabsorbent layer (110) is located fully within such that the superabsorbent layer (110) is not adhered to the backing layer (140) (see annotated figure 1, the superabsorbent layer [110] is not adhered to the backing layer [140]; the adhesive border region [130] can surround a non-adhesive central region [135] where it does not cover the wound contact layer [120] and only covers the periphery of the dressing. This allows the superabsorbent layer to be fully within the non-adhesive central region [135]: page 20, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 31, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer (110) is adhered directly or indirectly to the wound contact layer (120) (see annotated figure 1, the superabsorbent layer [110] is laminated to the wound contact layer [120]: page 15, lines 11-12).
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. fails to disclose wherein the dressing further comprises a scatter coat adhesive to provide the adherence of the superabsorbent layer to the wound contact layer.
Hoggarth et al. teaches wherein an analogous dressing (1 – see annotated figure 3, a wound dressing: paragraph 0095) further comprises a scatter coat adhesive (3 – see annotated figure 3, a layer of meltable adhesive that is in powder form: paragraph 0080/0095) to provide the adherence of an analogous superabsorbent layer (4 – see annotated figure 3, a layer of absorbent material comprising superabsorbent material: paragraph 0014/0095) to an analogous wound contact layer (2 – see annotated figure 3, a layer of wicking material that acts as a wound contact layer: paragraph 0095) (see annotated figure 3, the superabsorbent layer [4] is bonded to the wound contact layer [2] via the scatter coat adhesive: paragraph 0080/0095).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the dressing of Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Adie et al. with a scatter coat adhesive that provides adherence of the superabsorbent layer to the wound contact layer as taught by Hoggarth et al. in order to provide an improved wound dressing to ensure that the layers of the dressings have a strong bond and will not break when the dressings get with wound fluid during use (paragraph 0097, Hoggarth et al.).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) in view of Adie et al. (WO 2011135286 A1) in view of Rivest (US 20190192352 A1) and in further view of Collinson et al. (US 20160120706 A).
Regarding claim 18, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3. Rivest et al. further teaches wherein the foam layer (16a) comprises a first, wound facing surface (D – see annotated figure 2, a wound facing surface) and a second, backing layer facing surface (E – see annotated figure 2, a backing layer facing surface).
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. fails to disclose the foam layer first surface comprising a foam first adhesive layer.
Collinson et al. teaches an analogous foam layer first surface (F – see annotated figure 4, a wound facing side of the foam [3450, a transmission layer that can be made of foam]: paragraph 0038/0380) comprising a foam first adhesive layer (see annotated figure 4, there is an adhesive layer on the wound contact layer [3460]; when the dressing is assembled, the adhesive layer contacts the foam layer’s first surface: paragraph 0380-0381).
PNG
media_image4.png
361
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4: wound dressing of Collinson et al.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the foam layer’s first surface of Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. with a first adhesive layer as taught by Collinson et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved assembly to maintain the integrity of the wound dressing and its layers (paragraph 0380, Collinson et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. in view of Rivest et al. and in further view of Collinson et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. Rivest et al. further teaches wherein the second surface (E) comprises a foam second adhesive layer (14 – see annotated figure 2, the second surface [E] comprises a second adhesive layer that adheres the foam layer [16a] to the backing layer [12]).
Regarding claim 20, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. in view of Rivest et al. and in further view of Collinson et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 19. Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. in view of Rivest et al. and in further view of Collinson et al. further discloses wherein the foam layer (Rivest et al.: 16a) and superabsorbent layer (Rivest et al.: 16) are adhered together (Rivest et al. in view of Collinson et al.: the foam layer and superabsorbent layer of Rivest et al. are adhered to each other via the adhesive layer of Collinson et al.).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) in view of Adie et al. (WO 2011135286 A1) in view of Rivest (US 20190192352 A1) and in further view Gergonne et al. (US 20160166726 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3.
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. fails to disclose wherein the foam layer is an aliphatic foam or a methylene diphenyl disoocyanate foam.
Gergonne et al. teaches wherein an analogous foam layer (4 – figure 1, an absorbent material: paragraph 0158-0159) is an aliphatic foam or a methylene diphenyl disoocyanate foam (the foam layer [4] can be an aliphatic polyurethane foam: paragraph 0121-0122).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam layer of Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. to be an aliphatic foam as taught by Gergonne et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved foam layer to allow flexibility and excellent retention levels of wound exudates due to its open cells (paragraph 0127, Gergonne et al.).
Regarding claim 22, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3.
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. fails to disclose wherein the foam is a polyurethane foam.
Gergonne et al. teaches wherein an analogous foam layer (4 – figure 1, an absorbent material: paragraph 0158-0159) is a polyurethane foam (the foam layer [4] can be a polyurethane foam: paragraph 0121-0122).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the foam layer of Cotton in view of Steven et al. in view of Adie et al. and in further view of Rivest et al. to be a polyurethane foam as taught by Gergonne et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved foam layer to allow flexibility and excellent retention levels of wound exudates due to its open cells (paragraph 0127, Gergonne et al.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK whose telephone number is (703)756-4605. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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.
/ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786