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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/21/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1, 12, 13, 20, and 25 in the response filed on 3/3/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 11-14, 18-20, 23, 25, and 27-32 are still pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3, filed on 9/21/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1-8, 11-14, 19-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection was made in view of Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in view of Steven et al. (US 20210393443 A1) and in further view of Locke et al. (US 20160175156 A1) to meet the newly added limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the Office is maintaining the previous references used: Vitaris et al. (US 20120083723 A1) and Rivest (US 20190192352 A1) and
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 1-8, 11-14, 19-20, 23, and 27 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 Locke et al. (US 20160175156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cotton discloses a wound dressing (100 - figure 1, a dressing: page 25, lines 1-7) 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 below, 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 perforated wound-site adhesive layer (130 - see annotated figure 1, skin contact layer comprising of silicone gel non-adherent adhesive: page 25, lines 23-27) for adhering the wound dressing (100) to a wound site (the adhesive layer [130] adheres the wound dressing [100] via attaching to the peri-wound skin: page 27, lines 31-33) and comprising a plurality of perforations (135 - see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2, the adhesive layer [130] comprises a plurality of perforations: page 26, lines 23-30), wherein the adhesive layer (130) comprises a border region (C - see annotated figure 2, border region of the adhesive layer [130]) which surrounds the wound contact layer (120) (see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2, the border region [C] surrounds the wound contact layer [120]); wherein the plurality of perforations (135) are arranged in a regular array comprising rows (D - see annotated figure 2, row of perforations) and columns (E - see annotated figure 2, column of perforations) (see annotated figure 2, the perforations [135] arranged in an array); wherein the adhesive laver (130) comprises an inner edge (F - see annotated figure 2, inner edge of the adhesive layer [130]) defining a central window (133 - see annotated figure 1, a central opening of the adhesive layer [130] that exposes the wound contact layer [120]: page 25, lines 29-32) through which the wound contact layer (120) is exposed (see annotated figure 1, the central window [133] exposes the wound contact layer [120]: page 25, lines 29-32); wherein the wound contact layer (120) comprises an outer edge (G - see annotated figure 2, the wound contact layer [120] comprises an outer edge: page 25, lines 29-32) and overlaps the adhesive layer (130) around a periphery of the wound contact layer (120) so as to be adhered thereto (see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2, the outer edge [G] of the wound contact layer [120] overlaps the adhesive layer [130]; they are adhered to each other via acrylic adhesive: page 25, line 33/page 26, lines 1-2); and, wherein a width of the overlap (H - see annotated figure 2, the width of the overlap between the inner edge [H] and outer edge [G]) between the inner edge (F) of the adhesive layer (130) and the outer edge (G) of the wound contact layer (120) varies around the periphery of the wound contact layer (120) (see annotated figure 2, the width of the overlap [H] varies around the periphery of the wound contact layer [120] due to the rounded corners); wherein the overlap (H) comprises one or more corner region (I - see annotated figure 2, corner region of the overlap [H]) and one or more edge region (J: see annotated figure 2, edge region of the overlap [H]) of the wound contact layer (120) and adhesive layer (130) (see annotated figure 2, there are one or more corner [I] and edge regions [J]), wherein the width of the overlap (H) in the corner regions (I) is greater than the overlap (H) in an adjacent edge region (J) (see annotated figure 2, the width of the overlap [H] is greater in the corner regions [I] than the edge regions [J] due to the rounded corners).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: cross-section view of Cotton
PNG
media_image2.png
656
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: dressing of Cotton
However, Cotton fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of perforations have a diameter between 1.6mm and 2.7mm.
Steven et al. teaches wherein analogous plurality of perforations (the second layer of wound dressings can be a perforated adherent layer: paragraph 0040) have a diameter between 0.1mm-5mm (the diameter of the perforations of the second layer of the wound dressings can be between 0.1mm-5mm, which falls within the claimed range of 1.6mm - 2.7mm: paragraph 0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the filing date to have modified the diameter of the perforation from between 0.1mm and 0.5mm to between 1.6mm and 2.7mm to adjust the breathability of the border regions of the dressing to reduce the likelihood of maceration of healthy pen-wound skin to which the dressing is adhered to (page 26, lines 23-27, Cotton). Additionally, the claimed value lies within the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter of the perforations “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 3, lines 15-18).
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. fails to disclose wherein a spacing between adjacent columns is greater than a spacing between adjacent rows to form an elongate diamond lattice with adjacent perforations.
Locke et al. teaches wherein a spacing (B – figure 5, distance between one of the apertures: paragraph 0051) between analogous adjacent columns (K – see annotated figure 3, columns of perforations) is greater than a spacing (C – figure 5, distance between one of the apertures: paragraph 0051) between analogous adjacent rows (L – see annotated figure 3, rows of perforations) to form an elongate diamond lattice (W – see annotated figure 3, diamond lattice) with analogous adjacent perforations (see annotated figure 3, the space [B/C] between the columns [K] and rows [L] create a diamond lattice [W]; the space [B] between adjacent columns [K] ranges from 2.8mm to 3.2mm while the space [C] between adjacent rows [L] ranges from 2.8mm to 3.2mm. Therefore, the space [B] between adjacent columns [K] can be 3.2mm while the space [C] between adjacent rows [L] can be 2.8mm, which would make the space [B] between adjacent columns [K] larger than the space [C] between adjacent rows [L]: paragraph 0051).
PNG
media_image3.png
629
761
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3: the base layer of Locke 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 modified the plurality of perforations of Cotton in view of Steven et al. with a spacing between adjacent columns that is greater than a spacing between adjacent rows to form an elongate diamond lattice with adjacent perforations as taught by Locke et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved plurality of perforations to allow optimal fluid communication between the wound dressing and wound site and to control the adherence of the dressing to the user’s skin (paragraph 0047/0049, Locke et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Steven et al. further teaches wherein the diameter is between 0.1mm and 5mm (the diameter of the perforations of the second layer of the wound dressings can be between 0.1mm - 5mm, which falls within the claimed range between 2.1mm and 2.3mm [see examiner further notes below]: paragraph 0040). Cotton further discloses wherein the dressing (100) further comprises a foam layer (110 - see annotated figure 1, an absorbent foam pad: page 25, lines 15-17).
Examiner further notes: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the filing date to have modified the diameter of the perforation from between 0.1mm and 0.5mm to between 2.1mm and 2.3mm to adjust the breathability of the border regions of the dressing to reduce the likelihood of maceration of healthy pen-wound skin to which the dressing is adhered to (page 26, lines 23-27, Cotton). Additionally, the claimed value lies within the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter of the perforations “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 3, lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 3, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (130) partially overlaps the wound contact layer (120) (see annotated figure 2, the adhesive layer [130] and wound contact layer [120] overlap each other; see the width of the overlap [H]: page 25, line 33/page 26, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Steven et al. further teaches wherein an analogous adhesive layer (805 - see annotated figure 4, a hydrophobic layer that is perforated and can be adherent [can be silicone adhesive]: paragraph 0030/0040) extends continuously across an analogous first surface of the wound contact layer (M - see annotated figure 4, an absorbent wound interface with a first surface: paragraph 0030) (see annotated figure 4, the adhesive layer [806] extends continuously across the first surface of the wound contact layer [M] before peeling release liner [801] and adhesive layer [805]: paragraph 0030).
PNG
media_image4.png
354
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: dressing of Steven et al.
Regarding claim 5, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the plurality of perforations (135) are uniformly distributed across the full extent of the adhesive layer (130) (see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2, the perforations [135] are uniformly distributed [in an array] throughout the entire adhesive layer [130]).
Regarding claim 6, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the plurality of perforations have a common size (see annotated figure 2, the perforations [135] are the same size).
Regarding claim 7, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the plurality of perforations have a common shape (see annotated figure 2, the perforations [135] are the same shape).
Regarding claim 8, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 7. Cotton further discloses wherein the common shape is circular (see annotated figure 2, the shape of the perforations [135] are circular).
Regarding claim 11, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein adjacent rows (D) are laterally offset from one another (see annotated figure 2, the rows [D] are offset from one another in the adhesive layer [130]).
Regarding claim 12, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Steven et al. further teaches wherein the spacing between analogous adjacent columns (N - see annotated figure 5, columns of perforation) is between 0.2mm and 10mm (the spacing between perforations is between 0.2mm and 10mm, which falls within the claimed range of between 3.9mm and 8.1mm [see examiner further notes below]: paragraph 0040).
PNG
media_image5.png
538
815
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5: dressing of Steven et al. showing the rows and columns of perforations
Examiner further notes: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the filing date to have modified the spacing between columns from between 0.2mm and 10mm to between 3.9mm and 8.1mm to adjust the breathability of the border regions of the dressing to reduce the likelihood of maceration of healthy pen-wound skin to which the dressing is adhered to (page 26, lines 23-27, Cotton). Additionally, the claimed value lies within the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing between the columns of the perforations “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 5, line 4).
Regarding claim 13, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12. Steven et al. further teaches wherein the spacing between adjacent rows (O - see annotated figure 5, row of perforations) is between 2.5mm and 5.1mm (the spacing between the perforations is between 0.2mm and 10mm, which falls within the claimed range of between 2.5mm and 5.1mm [see examiner further notes below]: paragraph 0040).
Examiner further notes: It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the filing date to have modified the spacing between rows from between 0.2mm and 10mm to between 2.5mm and 5.1mm to adjust the breathability of the border regions of the dressing to reduce the likelihood of maceration of healthy pen-wound skin to which the dressing is adhered to (page 26, lines 23-27, Cotton). Additionally, the claimed value lies within the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing between the rows of the perforations “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 5, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 14, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses comprising an adhesive (130) that is silicone (the adhesive layer [130] comprises a silicone adhesive: page 19, lines 14-29/page 25, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 19, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the backing layer (140) is adhered to the adhesive layer (130) (see annotated figure 1, the backing layer [140] is adhered to the adhesive layer [130] via acrylic adhesive: page 26, lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 20, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses further comprising a superabsorbent layer (110 - see annotated figure 1, the absorbent body can contain a superabsorbent material: page 15, lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 23, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 20. Cotton further discloses wherein the superabsorbent layer (110) includes polyacrylate fibres (the superabsorbent layer [110] contains polyacrylates: page 16, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 27, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Steven et al. further teaches wherein an analogous wound contact layer (104 - figure 1A/1B, the wound contact layer: paragraph 0017) comprises gel forming fibers (the wound contact layer [104] comprises gelling fiber: paragraph 0017).
Claim 18 is 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 Locke et al. (US 20160175156 A1) and in further view of Vitaris et al. (US 20120083723 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Cotton further discloses wherein the one or more corner region (I) comprises an inner edge (F) having a first radius of curvature (Q - see annotated figure 6, first radius of curvature of the inner edge [F]), and an outer edge (G) comprises a second radius of curvature (P - see annotated figure 6, second radius curvature of the outer edge [G]).
PNG
media_image6.png
342
579
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6: dressing of Cotton showing the radius of curvatures
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. fails to disclose wherein the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature.
Vitaris et al. teaches wherein an analogous first radius of curvature (R - see annotated figure 7, first radius of curvature) is greater than an analogous second radius of curvature (S - see annotated figure 7, second radius of curvature) (see annotated figure 7, the first radius of curvature [R] is greater than the second radius of curvature [S]).
PNG
media_image7.png
488
558
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7: dressing of Vitaris et al. showing the radius of curvatures
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 first radius of curvature and second radius of curvature of Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. in which the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature as taught by Vitaris et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved bond between the layers to ensure that there is sufficient surface area of overlap to better secure/adhere the layers to each other (paragraph 0006/0023, Vitaris et al.).
Claim 25 is 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 Locke et al. (US 20160175156 A1) and in further view of Rivest (US 20190192352 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. fails to disclose wherein the foam layer comprises an outer profile which corresponds with and is in register with an outer profile of a superabsorbent layer.
Rivest teaches wherein an analogous foam layer (16a - figure 3, a foam layer made of polyvinyl alcohol foam: paragraph 0037/0042) comprises an outer profile which corresponds with and is in register with an outer profile of a superabsorbent layer (16 - figure 3, a layer that is made of silicone in combination with superabsorbent polymers: paragraph 0037/0042) (figure 3, the foam layer [16a] and superabsorbent layer [16] have the same outer profile and are aligned with each other).
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 of Cotton in view of Steven et al. and in further view of Locke et al. with a superabsorbent layer that have the same outer profile as the foam layer as taught by Rivest in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved foam and superabsorbent layer to absorb substantial fluid from a wound without requiring frequent replacement of the dressing and promote comfort while using the wound dressing (paragraph 0037/0042, Rivest).
Claims 28-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in in view of Locke et al. (US 20160175156 A1) and in further view of Vitaris et al. (US 20120083723 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Cotton discloses a wound dressing (100 - figure 1, a dressing: page 25, lines 1-7) 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); and, a perforated wound-site adhesive layer (130 - see annotated figure 1, skin contact layer comprising of silicone gel non-adherent adhesive: page 25, lines 23-27) for adhering the wound dressing (100) to a wound site (the adhesive layer [130] adheres the wound dressing [100] via attaching to the peri-wound skin: page 27, lines 31-33) and comprising a plurality of perforations (135 - see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2 below, the adhesive layer [130] comprises a plurality of perforations: page 26, lines 23-30); wherein the perforations (135) are arranged in a regular array comprising rows (D - see annotated figure 2, row of perforations) and columns (E - see annotated figure 2, column of perforations) (see annotated figure 2, the perforations [135] arranged in an array).
However, Cotton fails to disclose wherein the spacing between adjacent columns is greater than the spacing between adjacent rows.
Locke et al. discloses wherein an analogous spacing (B – figure 5, distance between one of the apertures: paragraph 0051) between analogous adjacent columns (K – see annotated figure 3, columns of perforations) is greater than an analogous spacing (C – figure 5, distance between one of the apertures: paragraph 0051) between analogous adjacent rows (L – see annotated figure 3, rows of perforations) (see annotated figure 3, the space [B/C] between the columns [K] and rows [L] create a diamond lattice; the space [B] between adjacent columns [K] ranges from 2.8mm to 3.2mm while the space [C] between adjacent rows [L] ranges from 2.8mm to 3.2mm. Therefore, the space [B] between adjacent columns [K] can be 3.2mm while the space [C] between adjacent rows [L] can be 2.8mm, which would make the space [B] between adjacent columns [K] larger than the space [C] between adjacent rows [L]: paragraph 0051).
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 plurality of perforations of Cotton with a spacing between adjacent columns that is greater than a spacing between adjacent rows as taught by Locke et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved plurality of perforations to allow optimal fluid communication between the wound dressing and wound site and to control the adherence of the dressing to the user’s skin (paragraph 0047/0049, Locke et al.).
Regarding claim 29, Cotton in view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 28. Cotton further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (130) comprises an inner edge (F - see annotated figure 2, inner edge of the adhesive layer [130]) defining a central window (133 - see annotated figure 1, a central opening of the adhesive layer [130] that exposes the wound contact layer [120]: page 25, lines 29-32) through which the wound contact layer (120) is exposed (see annotated figure 1, the central window [133] exposes the wound contact layer [120]: page 25, lines 29-32); wherein the wound contact layer (120) comprises an outer edge (G - see annotated figure 2, the wound contact layer [120] comprises an outer edge: page 25, lines 29-32) and overlaps the adhesive layer (130) around the periphery of the wound contact layer (120) so as to be adhered thereto (see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2, the outer edge [G] of the wound contact layer [120] overlaps the adhesive layer [130]; they are adhered to each other via acrylic adhesive: page 25, line 33/page 26, lines 1-2); and wherein the width of the overlap (H - see annotated figure 2, the width of the overlap between the inner edge [H] and outer edge [G]) between the inner edge (F) of the adhesive layer (130) and the outer edge (G) of the wound contact layer (120) varies around the periphery of the wound contact layer (120) (see annotated figure 2, the width of the overlap [H] varies around the periphery of the wound contact layer [120] due to the rounded corners).
Regarding claim 30, Cotton in view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 29. Cotton further discloses wherein the overlap (H) comprises one or more corner region (I - see annotated figure 2, corner region of the overlap [H]) and one or more edge region (J - see annotated figure 2, edge region of the overlap [H]) of the wound contact layer (120) and adhesive layer (130), wherein the width of the overlap (H) in the corner regions (I) is greater than the overlap (H) in an adjacent edge region (J) (see annotated figure 2, the width of the overlap [H] is greater in the corner regions [I] than the edge regions [J] due to the rounded corners).
Regarding claim 32, Cotton discloses a wound dressing (100 - figure 1, a dressing: page 25, lines 1-7) 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); and, a perforated wound-site adhesive layer (130 - see annotated figure 1, skin contact layer comprising of silicone gel non-adherent adhesive: page 25, lines 23-27) for adhering the wound dressing (100) to a wound site (the adhesive layer [130] adheres the wound dressing [100] via attaching to the peri-wound skin: page 27, lines 31-33) and comprising a plurality of perforations (135 - see annotated figure 1/annotated figure 2, the adhesive layer [130] comprises a plurality of perforations: page 26, lines 23-30).
However, Cotton fails to disclose wherein the plurality of perforations are provided along intersecting lines which form at least one diamond lattice cell and the diamond lattice cell comprises a perforation at each apex and has a major axis and a minor axis in which the major axis is longer than the minor axis.
Locke et al. discloses wherein an analogous plurality of perforations (160c – see annotated figure 8, apertures located in the central portion: paragraph 0050) are provided along intersecting lines (AA – see annotated figure 8, intersecting lines) which form at least one diamond lattice cell (AB – see annotated figure 8, the intersecting lines [AB] form a diamond lattice cell) and the diamond lattice cell (AB) comprises a perforation at each apex (AC – see annotated figure 8, the apex of each diamond lattice cell [AC]) and has a major axis (AD – see annotated figure 8, major axis) and a minor axis (AE – see annotated figure 8, minor axis) in which the major axis (AD) is longer than the minor axis (AE) (figure 5/annotated figure 8, the space [B – figure 5] between adjacent columns ranges from 2.8mm to 3.2mm while the space [C – figure 5] between adjacent rows ranges from 2.8mm to 3.2mm. Therefore, the space [B] between adjacent columns can be 3.2mm while the space [C] between adjacent rows can be 2.8mm, which would make the space [B] between adjacent columns larger than the space [C] between adjacent rows: paragraph 0051).
PNG
media_image8.png
622
959
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8: wound dressing of Locke 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 modified the plurality of perforations of Cotton with a diamond lattice cell that comprises a perforation at each apex and has a major axis that is longer than the minor axis as taught by Locke et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved plurality of perforations to allow optimal fluid communication between the wound dressing and wound site and to control the adherence of the dressing to the user’s skin (paragraph 0047/0049, Locke et al.).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotton (GB 2527617 A) in in view of Locke et al. (US 20160175156 A1) and in further view of Vitaris et al. (US 20120083723 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Cotton in view of Locke et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 14. Cotton further discloses wherein the one or more corner region (I) comprises an inner edge (F) having a first radius of curvature (Q - see annotated figure 6, first radius of curvature of the inner edge [F]), and the outer edge (G) comprises a second radius of curvature (P - see annotated figure 6, second radius curvature of the outer edge [G]).
However, Cotton in view of Locke et al. fails to disclose wherein the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature.
Vitaris et al. teaches wherein an analogous first radius of curvature (R - see annotated figure 7, first radius of curvature) is greater than an analogous second radius of curvature (S - see annotated figure 7, second radius of curvature) (see annotated figure 7, the first radius of curvature [R] is greater than the second radius of curvature [S]).
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 first radius of curvature and second radius of curvature of Cotton in view of Locke et al. in which the first radius of curvature is greater than the second radius of curvature as taught by Vitaris et al. in order to provide a wound dressing that has an improved bond between the layers to ensure that there is sufficient surface area of overlap to better secure/adhere the layers to each other (paragraph 0006/0023, Vitaris et al.).
Conclusion
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