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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krull (KR20200038307A).
With respect to claim 1, Krull discloses a stretch to fit bandage (the adhesive article can be used as a bandage – translation pg 21; and is configured to be stretchable – translation pg 6; i.e. article 300) comprising: a stretchable backing layer (elastic core – translation pg 11; ie core 310 which comprises backing layers 310a and 310b – translation pg 7); and an adhesive layer positioned adjacent at least a portion of the backing layer (adhesive layer 340).
Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer has a percent elongation of at least about 200% and that the backing layer has an elastic recovery after elongation of less than about 35%.
Krull does, however, teach that the backing layer has a percent elongation of 50-1200% (translation pg 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least about 200%” and, additionally, teaches that the backing layer has an elastic recovery after elongation of 1-99% (translation pg 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than about 35%”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the device of Krull so that the percent elongation is, specifically, at least about 200% and that the elastic recovery is, specifically, less than about 35%, in order to thereby control how much the bandage is able to stretch without resulting in permanent deformation. Furthermore, such ranges would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses that the adhesive layer is comprised of one of rubber, an acrylic, and a silicone (rubber or silicone – translation pg 16).
With respect to claim 3, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer has a percent elongation of at least about 500%.
Krull does, however, teach a percent elongation of 50-1200% (translation pg 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least about 500%” and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the device of Krull so that the percent elongation is, specifically, at least about 500% in order to thereby control how much the bandage is able to stretch. Furthermore, such a range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer has a percent elongation of at least about 800%.
Krull does, however, teach a percent elongation of 50-1200% (translation pg 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least about 800%” and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the device of Krull so that the percent elongation is, specifically, at least about 800% in order to thereby control how much the bandage is able to stretch. Furthermore, such a range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the bandage has an elastic recovery after elongation of less than about 25%.
Krull does, however, teach that the backing layer has an elastic recovery after elongation of 1-99% (translation pg 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than about 25%”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the device of Krull so that the elastic recovery is, specifically, less than about 25%, in order to thereby control how much the bandage is able to stretch without resulting in permanent deformation. Furthermore, such a range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the bandage has an elastic recovery after elongation of less than about 15%.
Krull does, however, teach that the backing layer has an elastic recovery after elongation of 1-99% (translation pg 11), which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than about 15%”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the device of Krull so that the elastic recovery is, specifically, less than about 15%, in order to thereby control how much the bandage is able to stretch without resulting in permanent deformation. Furthermore, such a range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses that the bandage has a hold time of at least about 8 hours (the adhesive article can hold a 0.5 lb weight for at least 72 hours – translation pg 18)
With respect to claim 9, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses that the bandage has a hold time of at least about 24 hours (the adhesive article can hold a 0.5 lb weight for at least 72 hours – translation pg 18).
With respect to claim 10, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses that the bandage has a hold time of at least about 48 hours (the adhesive article can hold a 0.5 lb weight for at least 72 hours – translation pg 18).
With respect to claim 15, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses a release liner positioned adjacent the adhesive layer (translation pg 18).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krull (KR20200038307A) in view of Finley (AU-2366399-A).
With respect to claim 7, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses that the bandage is capable of stretching along multiple axes (the core has an elongation at break in “one or more directions” which is interpreted to mean that the structure is capable of stretching along multiple axes – see translation pg 11). Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the bandage is capable of stretching along any given axis.
Finley, however, teaches a highly conformable adhesive bandage comprising a conformable backing (pg 5 lines 3-7; the conformable backing must exhibit a high percent elongation without breaking to conform to the topography of the skin and thus is stretchable – pg 11 line 30 – pg 12 line 11) wherein the stretch and recovery properties should be the same in all directions to provide conformability in all directions during use (pg 7 lines 19-22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the bandage of Krull so that it is capable of stretching along any axis like the bandage of Finley which is capable of stretching in all directions to thereby provide conformability in all directions during use.
With respect to claim 14, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Krull also discloses that the backing is stretchable in multiple directions (the core has an elongation at break in “one or more directions” which is interpreted to mean that the structure is capable of stretching along multiple axes – see translation pg 11). Krull does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer is stretchable in at least four directions.
Finley, however, teaches a highly conformable adhesive bandage comprising a conformable backing (pg 5 lines 3-7; the conformable backing must exhibit a high percent elongation without breaking to conform to the topography of the skin and thus is stretchable – pg 11 line 30 – pg 12 line 11) wherein the stretch and recovery properties should be the same in all directions to provide conformability in all directions during use (pg 7 lines 19-22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the bandage of Krull so that it is capable of stretching in at least four directions like the bandage of Finley which is capable of stretching in all directions to thereby provide conformability in multiple directions during use.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krull (KR20200038307A) in view of Brasch (US 2017/0360542).
With respect to claims 11-13, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that the bandage further comprises an absorbent element comprising a pad positioned adjacent the backing layer wherein the absorbent element may comprise one of a: woven or nonwoven cloth, rayon, nonwovens, fibers, particles, hydrocolloids, foams, and combinations thereof.
Brasch, however, teaches a bandage 100 which includes a flexible layer 101 that is formed from kinesiology tape and is capable of being stretched (para [0041-0042]) wherein an absorbent pad 113 is disposed on the inner face 105 of the kinesiology tape 101 (and thus is positioned adjacent to tape 101; see para [0045]) and wherein the absorbent pad comprises an alginate dressing comprised of alginate fibers which can maintain a moist microenvironment that promotes healing and the formation of granulation tissue (para [0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the bandage of Krull to further comprise an absorbent element comprising a pad positioned adjacent the backing layer wherein the absorbent element comprises fibers, like the bandage of Brasch which includes an absorbent pad comprising an alginate dressing with alginate fibers, in order to maintain a moist microenvironment that promotes healing and the formation of granulation tissue.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krull (KR20200038307A) in view of Ragg (EP 2910224 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Krull discloses the bandage substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) but does not disclose that the release liner is stretchable.
Ragg, however, teaches a stretchable adhesive bandage comprising two release liners wherein one release liner is elastic and expandable in order to permit removal after placement on a target (para [0068]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the release liner on the bandage of Krull from a stretchable material like the release liner on the stretchable bandage of Ragg in order to assist with proper placement of the bandage by permitting removal of the liner after placement on a target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786