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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I drawn to claims 1-2, 13-15 and 18 in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3-6, 16-17 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract includes the legal phraseology “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer edge" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the skin" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 1, the terminology “may be” renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim limitation is not define to which Applicant is seeking patent protection.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the port" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as the specification did not provide general guidelines to define the term “substantially”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same plane" in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the skin" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the layers" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 13, the terminology “may be” renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim limitation is not define to which Applicant is seeking patent protection.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as the specification did not provide general guidelines to define the term “substantially”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the same plane" in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the layers" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter since they depend directly or indirectly on rejected base claims 1 and 13 and therefore, contain the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 13-15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art drawn to Weimann U.S. Patent No. (11,285,117 B2) fails to show or make obvious the claimed combinations of elements particularly the limitations as set forth in independent claims 1 and 13 and its dependent claims 2 and 14-15 and 18 which recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art drawn to Weimann. It is respectfully submitted that the cited references, i.e., Weimann considered either alone or in combination, fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the claimed combinations of features presently set forth in independent claims 1 and 13. More particularly, it is respectfully submitted that the cited reference fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the claimed combination of features presently set forth in independent claims 1 and 13, including the combination of features of: “A surgical wound dressing kit, comprising: a. a multilayer wound dressing comprising: ii. a therapeutic layer containing comprising at least cannabidiol; iii. a wound care composition layer comprising a silver compound; and v. at least one port positioned on the outer cover extending into and in direct communication with the therapeutic layer to provide an opening through which cannabidiol may be added or replenished; and b. a cartridge containing additional cannabidiol configured to connect to the port to provide additional cannabidiol, wherein the layers of the multilayer wound dressing are positioned adjacent to or surrounding each other spatially in substantially the same plane on the dressing”, in combination with the other elements (or steps) of the apparatus and method recited in the claims.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness or an anticipation rejection cannot be established with respect to the claimed subject matter as set forth in claims 1 and 13.
Claims 2 and 14-15 and 18 are allowed insofar as they depend from the allowed base claims 1 and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, EST.
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 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights