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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-7, 12-13, 15-17, and 19, the cancellation of claims 18 and 20, and the addition of claims 21-27 filed 12/23/2026 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-17, 19, and 21-27 are currently pending and are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the office action has been updated. Ramjit in view of Won now reads on independent claim 1, and Ramjit in view of Gleason further in view of Won now reads on independent claim 12.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the hydrocolloid adhesive” in line 6 and in lines 6-7 should be recited as “the hydrocolloid adhesive composition”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-23 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.
The term “about” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 no explicit definition has been given, the examiner has defined “about 300 g/mol to about 600 g/mol” as “300 g/mol to 600 g/mol”.
The term “about” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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 no explicit definition has been given, the examiner has defined “about 600 g/mol to about 800 g/mol” as “600 g/mol to 800 g/mol”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit et al. (referred to as “Ramjit”) (US 2016/0008505 A1) in view of Won et al. (referred to as “Won”) (US 2023/0416572 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramjit discloses a hydrocolloid adhesive composition (see [0017], [0053]; the present adhesive composition is a hydrocolloid adhesive composition as it comprises fluid absorbent materials) comprising:
a base polymer (see [0044]-[0045] and [0087]; styrene isoprene styrene (SIS) can form the base polymer and acts as the foundation to build the adhesive);
a hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0046], [0088]; a hydrocarbon tackifier may be included);
an absorbent (see [0056]-[0057]; carboxymethyl cellulose gum (CMC) is added and serves to take up moisture, and thus is an absorbent, also applicant states in specification on page 11 paragraph [0052] that CMC is an absorbent); and
a plasticizer (see [0045] which discusses the use of a plasticizer, which is typically an oil, in forming the hydrocolloid adhesive composition, and further see [0047] which further discusses that coconut oil or mineral oil may be the plasticizer).
Ramjit is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid adhesive is substantially transparent, and the hydrocolloid adhesive has a total light transmittance of greater than 90%.
However, Won teaches an analogous adhesive composition (see Abstract and [0028]; a pressure sensitive adhesive composition is discussed), and wherein the adhesive composition is substantially transparent, and the adhesive composition has a total light transmittance of greater than 90% (see [0045] which discusses how the adhesive composition can be optically transparent/optically clear, and thus has a light transmission of at least 95% which is greater than 90%, and [0027]), providing an adhesive that does not hinder a user from viewing or checking on the desired area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid adhesive composition in the device of Ramjit to be transparent and have a total light transmittance of greater than 90% as taught by Won to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive composition that does not hinder a user from viewing or checking on the desired area.
Regarding claim 2, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the base polymer comprises 5% to 20% by weight of the composition (the base polymer is SIS, also known as KRATON, as disclosed in [0044]-[0045] and [0087] of Ramjjit, and thus in example 2, KRATON 1161 is 18 weight % of the composition, see [0117] of Ramjit, and thus is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon tackifier comprise 25% to 40% by weight of the composition (the hydrocarbon tackifier is also known as FORAL 85, see [0088] of Ramjit, and thus in example 2, FORAL 85 or the hydrocarbon tackifier is 40 weight % of the composition, see [0118] of Ramjit, and thus is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the absorbent comprises 30% to 50% by weight of the composition (carboxymethyl cellulose is the absorbent as disclosed in [0056]-[0057] of Ramjit, and in example 2, CMC is 36 weight % of the composition, see [0116] of Ramjit, and thus is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the plasticizer comprises up to 20% by weight of the composition (the plasticizer may be coconut oil as disclosed in [0047] of Ramjit, and in example 2, coconut oil is 6.0 weight % of the composition, see [0115] of Ramjit, and thus is up to about 20% by weight of the composition).
Regarding claim 8, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the base polymer comprises a poly(styrene-olefin-styrene) polymer or a poly(styrene-isoprene-styrene) polymer (see [0044]-[0045] and [0088] of Ramjit; the base polymer is poly(styrene-isoprene-styrene) or SIS).
Regarding claim 9, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the absorbent is a hydrophilic polymer (see [0056]-[0057] of Ramjit; carboxymethyl cellulose gum (CMC) is the absorbent as it serves to take up or absorb moisture, and CMC also absorbs water and thus is a hydrophilic polymer).
Regarding claim 10, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the hydrophilic polymer is a cellulose (see [0056]-[0057] of Ramjit; CMC is a cellulose).
Regarding claim 11, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Ramjit in view of Won further discloses wherein the plasticizer is selected from mineral oil, liquid isoprene rubber and combinations thereof (see [0045] of Ramjit which discusses the use of a plasticizer, which is typically an oil, in forming the hydrocolloid adhesive composition, and further see [0047] of Ramjit which further discusses that mineral oil may be the plasticizer).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit in view Won further in view of of Gleason et al. (referred to as “Gleason”) (US 2014/0162082 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Ramjit in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocarbon tackifier is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups.
However, Gleason teaches an analogous hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0032])-[0033]), wherein the hydrocarbon tackifier is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups (see [0032]-[0033] which discusses Escorez 5690 may be a tackifying agent used, which is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups), providing a tackifier that improves the tack and adhesion of the adhesive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocarbon tackifier in the device of Ramjit in view of Won to be a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups as taught by Gleason to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive composition that has a tackifier that improves the tack and adhesion of the adhesive.
Regarding claim 7, Ramjit in view of Wonl further in view of Gleason discloses the invention as discussed in claim 6. Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason further discloses wherein the cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups comprises about 5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% aromatic protons (as previously modified above, see claim 6, Gleason discloses Escorez 5690 is a hydrocarbon tackifier that is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups, see [0032]-[0033] of Gleason, and further according to ExxonMobil, the aromaticity or % of aromatic protons of Escorez 5690 is 10.1 wt.% , and thus falls within the range of 5 wt.% and 15 wt.%, see https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/en/chemicals/webapi/dps/v1/datasheets/150000000165/0/en).
Regarding claim 21, Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason discloses the invention as discussed in claim 7. Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason further discloses wherein the cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups has a softening point of 80 to 100 C (as previously modified above, see claim 6, Gleason discloses Escorez 5690 is a hydrocarbon tackifier that is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups, see [0032]-[0033] of Gleason, and further according to ExxonMobil, the softening point is 90.5, and thus is between the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason discloses the invention as discussed in claim 6. Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason further discloses wherein the cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups has a number average molecular weight of about 300 g/mol to about 600 g/mol (as previously modified above, see claim 6, Gleason discloses Escorez 5690 is a hydrocarbon tackifier that is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups, see [0032]-[0033] of Gleason, and further according to ExxonMobil, the number average molecular weight is 450 g/mol which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 23, Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason discloses the invention as discussed in claim 6. Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason further discloses wherein the cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups has a weight average molecular weight of about 600 g/mol to about 800 g/mol (as previously modified above, see claim 6, Gleason discloses Escorez 5690 is a hydrocarbon tackifier that is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups, see [0032]-[0033] of Gleason, and further according to ExxonMobil, the weight average molecular weight is 760 g/mol which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 24, Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason discloses the invention as discussed in claim 6. Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Gleason further discloses wherein the cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups comprises a C3 to C10 cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon resin (see [0032]-[0033] of Gleason; as previously modified above, see claim 6, Gleason discloses that the cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon resin could include C5, C9, and C10 resins, see [0032] of Gleason).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (referred to as “Nielsen ‘955”) (US 2014/0213955 A1) in view of Won.
Regarding claim 1, Nielsen ‘955 discloses a hydrocolloid adhesive composition (see Abstract; the present adhesive composition is a hydrocolloid adhesive composition as it comprises a hydrocolloid) comprising:
a base polymer (see [0011]-[0012]; styrene-isoprene-styrene (SIS) copolymer is a base polymer as it forms the foundation of the composition);
a hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0016]; a tackifier may be a hydrocarbon resin);
an absorbent (see [0022]-[0027]; the hydrocolloid, such as carboxymethyl cellulose, is an absorbent as it provides water handling to the adhesive through absorption capacity, see [0027]); and
a plasticizer (see [0019]-[0020]; mineral oil is a plasticizer as the oil adjusts the hardness and tack of the adhesive).
Nielsen ‘955 is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid adhesive is substantially transparent, and the hydrocolloid adhesive has a total light transmittance of greater than 90%.
However, Won teaches an analogous adhesive composition (see Abstract and [0028]; a pressure sensitive adhesive composition is discussed), and wherein the adhesive composition is substantially transparent, and the adhesive composition has a total light transmittance of greater than 90% (see [0045] which discusses how the adhesive composition can be optically transparent/optically clear, and thus has a light transmission of at least 95% which is greater than 90%, and [0027]), providing an adhesive that does not hinder a user from viewing or checking on the desired area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid adhesive composition in the device of Nielsen ‘955 to be transparent and have a total light transmittance of greater than 90% as taught by Won to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive composition that does not hinder a user from viewing or checking on the desired area.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won in view of CHOU (EP 3246143 A2) further in view of Gleason.
Regarding claim 25, Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further discloses 10 wt.% to 15 wt.% base polymer (see [0011]-[0012]; SIS copolymer comprises 4-15 wt.% and thus can be in the range of 10 wt.% to 15 wt.%);
41 wt.% to 46 wt.% absorbent (see [0022]-[0027]; the hydrocolloid, which may be carboxymethyl cellulose which is an absorbent, may comprise 30-45 wt.% and thus overlaps with the claimed range of 41 wt.% to 46 wt.%); and
6 wt.% to 17 wt.% plasticizer (see [0019]-[0020]; the mineral oil, which is a plasticizer, comprises 6-18 wt.% which overlaps with the claimed range of 6-17 wt.%).
Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won is silent on 25 wt.% to 35 wt.% hydrocarbon tackifier, wherein the hydrocarbon tackifier is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups.
However, CHOU teaches an analogous hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0026]; the pressure sensitive adhesive composition includes a tackifier which may be a hydrocarbon resin), and 25 wt.% to 35 wt.% hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0026]-[0027]; the hydrocarbon tackifier may be within the range of 10 to 50 wt.% and mor preferably 25 to 35 wt.%, which is the claimed range), providing an adhesive that is properly tacky to quickly stick to skin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amount of the hydrocarbon tackifier in the device of Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won to be 25 wt.% to 35 wt.% as taught by CHOU to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive that is properly tacky to quickly stick to skin.
Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further in view of CHOU discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further in view of CHOU is silent on wherein the hydrocarbon tackifier is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups.
However, Gleason teaches an analogous hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0032]-[0033]), wherein the hydrocarbon tackifier is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups (see [0032]-[0033] which discusses Escorez 5690 may be a tackifying agent used, which is a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups), providing a tackifier that improves the tack and adhesion of the adhesive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocarbon tackifier in the device of Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further in view of CHOU to be a cycloaliphatic hydrocarbon modified with aromatic functional groups as taught by Gleason to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive composition that has a tackifier that improves the tack and adhesion of the adhesive.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won in view of CHOU further in view of Sahni et al. (referred to as “Sahni”) (US 2025/0059403 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further discloses 10 wt.% to 15 wt.% poly(styrene-isoprene-sytrene) (see [0011]-[0012]; SIS or styrene-isoprene-styrene copolymer comprises 4-15 wt.% and thus can be in the range of 10 wt.% to 15 wt.%);
41 wt.% to 46 wt.% carboxymethylcellulose (see [0022]-[0027]; the hydrocolloid, which may be carboxymethyl cellulose, may comprise 30-45 wt.% and thus overlaps with the claimed range of 41 wt.% to 46 wt.%); and
5 wt.% to 10 wt.% mineral oil (see [0019]-[0020]; the mineral oil comprises 6-18 wt.% which overlaps with the claimed range of 5-10 wt.%).
Nielsen ‘955 is silent on 25 wt.% to 35 wt.% hydrocarbon tackifier; and 1 wt.% to 8wt.% liquid isoprene rubber.
However, CHOU teaches an analogous hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0026]; the pressure sensitive adhesive composition includes a tackifier which may be a hydrocarbon resin), and 25 wt.% to 35 wt.% hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0026]-[0027]; the hydrocarbon tackifier may be within the range of 10 to 50 wt.% and mor preferably 25 to 35 wt.%, which is the claimed range), providing an adhesive that is properly tacky to quickly stick to skin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amount of the hydrocarbon tackifier in the device of Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won to be 25 wt.% to 35 wt.% as taught by CHOU to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive that is properly tacky to quickly stick to skin.
Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further in view of CHOU discloses the invention as discussed above.
Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further in view of CHOU is silent on 1 wt.% to 8 wt.% liquid isoprene rubber.
However, Sahni teaches an analogous adhesive composition (see Abstract) further comprising 1 wt.% to 8 wt.% liquid isoprene rubber (see [0005]; the adhesive composition includes liquid rubber, such as isoprene rubber including 3 wt.% to 80 wt.% of the isoprene rubber, which overlaps with the claimed range), providing to enhance the flexibility of the adhesive without destroying the strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid adhesive composition of Nielsen ‘955 in view of Won further in view of CHOU to include 1 wt.% to 8wt.% of liquid isoprene rubber as taught by Sahni to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive composition that enhances the flexibility of the adhesive without destroying the strength.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit in view of Gilman (US 2003/0139697 A1) further in view of Won.
Regarding claim 12, Ramjit discloses a wound dressing comprising:
a carrier film (see [0053] which discusses how the hydrocolloid adhesive in the present invention is used in wound dressings, and the hydrocolloid adhesive is laminated to a polymer film to form an adhesive laminate, and thus the polymer film is a carrier film); and
a hydrocolloid layer disposed on the carrier film (see [0053] which discusses the hydrocolloid adhesive composition is laminated to a polymer film and thus is a hydrocolloid layer), wherein the hydrocolloid layer comprises:
a base polymer (see [0044]-[0045] and [0087]; styrene isoprene styrene (SIS) can form the base polymer and acts as the foundation to build the adhesive);
a hydrocarbon tackifier (see [0046], [0088]; a hydrocarbon tackifier may be included);
an absorbent (see [0056]-[0057]; carboxymethyl cellulose gum (CMC) is added and serves to take up moisture, and thus is an absorbent, also applicant states in specification on page 11 paragraph [0052] that CMC is an absorbent); and
a plasticizer (see [0045] which discusses the use of a plasticizer, which is typically an oil, in forming the hydrocolloid adhesive composition, and further see [0047] which further discusses that coconut oil or mineral oil may be the plasticizer).
Ramjit is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer is substantially transparent and wherein the hydrocolloid layer has a total light transmittance of greater than 90%.
However, Gilman teaches an analogous hydrocolloid layer (11), wherein the hydrocolloid layer (11) is substantially transparent (see [0019] which discusses how the hydrocolloid-containing layer 11 is transparent), providing to permit visual inspection of the wound site through the dressing (see [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit to be transparent as taught by Gilman to have provided an improved wound dressing that permits visual inspection of the wound site through the dressing (see [0019]).
Ramjit in view of Gilman discloses the invention as discussed above.
Ramjit in view of Gilman is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer has a total light transmittance of greater than 90%.
However, Won teaches an analogous adhesive layer (see [0004] and [0048] which discusses how adhesive articles may have a pressure sensitive layer disposed on a substrate and thus is an adhesive layer), wherein the layer has a total light transmittance of greater than 90% (see [0045] which discusses how the adhesive layer is optically clear having a light transmission of at least 95% which is greater than 90%, also see [0027]), providing a wound dressing that does not hinder a user from viewing or checking on the desired area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman to have a total light transmittance of greater than 90% as taught by Won to have provided an improved wound dressing that does not hinder a user from viewing or checking on the desired area.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit in view of Gilman in view of Won further in view of Nielsen et al. (referred to as “Nielsen”) (US 2016/0045376 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12.
Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won is silent on wherein the carrier film is selected from a group consisting of a polyurethane film, an ethylene vinyl acetate film, or a combination thereof.
However, Nielsen teaches an analogous wound dressing (see Figs. 1-3) and an analogous carrier film (2) (see Figs. 1-3; backing layer 2 is an analogous carrier film as backing layer 2 supports the adhesive layer 1 applied to the surface of the backing layer 2), and wherein the carrier film (2) is selected from a group consisting of polyurethane film, an ethylene vinyl acetate film, or combinations thereof (see Figs. 1-3 and [0035] which discusses how the backing layer 2 is a polyurethane film), providing a backing layer that facilitates high permeability but still protecting the wound from contamination and dirt (see [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrier film in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won to be a polyurethane film as taught by Nielsen to have provided an improved wound dressing that provides a backing layer that facilitates high permeability but still protects the wound from contamination and dirt (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12.
Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer is discontinuous.
However, Nielsen teaches an analogous hydrocolloid layer (1) (see [0032] which discusses how the adhesive 1 may be a hydrocolloid adhesive and thus is a hydrocolloid layer as the adhesive 1 is on top of backing layer 2), and wherein the hydrocolloid layer (1) is discontinuous (see Figs. 1-3 and [0028]; the hydrocolloid adhesive is the shape of adhesive lanes 1, and thus is discontinuous as there are spaces in between the adhesive lanes 1 of the backing layer 2), providing improved flexibility and moisture handling of the wound dressing (see [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won to be discontinuous as taught by Nielsen to have provided an improved wound dressing that provides improved flexibility and moisture handling of the wound dressing (see [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12.
Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer disposed on the carrier film comprises a plurality of undulating lines.
However, Nielsen teaches an analogous hydrocolloid layer (1) (see [0032] which discusses how adhesive 1 may be a hydrocolloid adhesive and thus is a hydrocolloid layer as the adhesive 1 is on top of backing layer 2) and an analogous carrier film (2) (see [0035]; backing layer 2 is an analogous carrier film as the backing layer 2 may be a polyurethane film), and wherein the hydrocolloid layer (1) disposed on the carrier film (2) comprises a plurality of undulating lines (see Figs. 1-3 and see [0028] which discusses the adhesive lanes 1 may be wave-shaped or zigzag pattern, and thus comprises a plurality of undulating lines, and the adhesive lanes 1 may be hydrocolloid adhesives, see [0032], thus the adhesive lanes 1 are disposed or arranged on the backing layer 2), providing improved flexibility and moisture handling of the wound dressing (see [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won to comprise a plurality of undulating lines disposed on the carrier film as taught by Nielsen to have provided an improved wound dressing that provides improved flexibility and moisture handling of the wound dressing (see [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12.
Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer disposed on the carrier film comprises a plurality of parallel lines.
However, Nielsen teaches an analogous hydrocolloid layer (1) (see [0032] which discusses how adhesive 1 may be a hydrocolloid adhesive and thus is a hydrocolloid layer as the adhesive 1 is on top of backing layer 2) and an analogous carrier film (2) (see [0035]; backing layer 2 is an analogous carrier film as the backing layer 2 may be a polyurethane film), and wherein the hydrocolloid layer (1) disposed on the carrier film (2) comprises a plurality of parallel lines (see Figs. 1-3 and [0028] which discusses how the adhesive lanes 1 are parallel lines, and the adhesive lanes 1 may be hydrocolloid adhesives, see [0032], and thus the adhesive lanes 1 are disposed or arranged on the backing layer 2), providing improved flexibility and moisture handling of the wound dressing (see [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won to comprise a plurality of parallel lines disposed on the carrier film as taught by Nielsen to have provided an improved wound dressing that provides improved flexibility and moisture handling of the wound dressing (see [0015]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit in view of Gilman in view of Won further in view of Lee (US 2014/0323941 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12.
Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer disposed on the carrier film comprises a plurality of dots.
However, Lee teaches an analogous wound dressing (see [0012] which discusses the present invention is provided with a medical dressing), and an analogous carrier film (101) (see Fig. 3; substrate 101 is an analogous carrier film as the substrate 101 carries the adhesive), and wherein the layer (300) disposed on the carrier film (101) comprises a plurality of dots (see Figs. 3-4 and [0026]; the adhesive layer comprises a plurality of bumps or dots 300 disposed on or arranged on the substrate 101), providing to improve skin friendliness of the material during use and allow convenient removal with avoidance of skin irritation (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won to comprise a plurality of dots (300) disposed on the carrier film as taught by Lee to have provided an improved wound dressing that improves skin friendliness of the material during use and allows convenient removal with avoidance of skin irritation (see Abstract).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit in view of Won further in view of Wroblewski et al. (referred to as “Wroblewski”) (US 2021/0345929 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Ramjit in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Ramjit in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid adhesive composition has a refractive index ranging from 1 to 2.
However, Wroblewski teaches an analogous adhesive composition (12) (adhesive layer 12 is an analogous adhesive composition as the layer is made up of components that form an adhesive composition), and wherein the adhesive composition has a refractive index ranging from 1 to 2 (see [0049]; the adhesive layer 12 has a refractive index in the range of 1.0 to 2.5, and thus can be from 1 to 2), providing an adhesive that does not hinder the viewing and checking of subjacent subject regions (see [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid adhesive composition in the device of Ramjit in view of Won to have a refractive index ranging 1 to 2 as taught by Wroblewski to have provided an improved hydrocolloid adhesive composition that provides an adhesive that does not hinder the viewing and checking of subjacent subject regions (see [0049]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramjit in view of Gilman in view of Won further in view of SEDDON et al. (referred to as “SEDDON”) (US 2023/0088196 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won discloses the invention as discussed in claim 27.
Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won is silent on wherein the hydrocolloid layer has a thickness of 0.3mm to 5mm.
However, SEDDON teaches an analogous hydrocolloid layer (103) (see Fig. 1A-1B and [0009] which discusses how the third layer 103 may be a hydrocolloid and thus is a hydrocolloid layer), and wherein the hydrocolloid layer has a thickness of 0.3mm to 5mm (see [Fig. 1A-1B and [0009], and [0011] which discusses how the third layer 103, which is a hydrocolloid, may have a thickness of 0.3mm, which overlaps with the claimed range), providing a flexible and conformable layer, making it more comfortable for a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrocolloid layer in the device of Ramjit in view of Gilman further in view of Won to have a thickness of 0.3mm to 5mm as taught by SEDDON to have provided an improved wound dressing that is flexible and conformable, making it more comfortable for a user.
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 ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 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 (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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights