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 .
Specification
The use of the term 3M™, and CoTran™ which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-10, and 17-18 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, 11, and 14 presents the limitation “the periphery” in the sections which begins with “an adhesive deadening layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a periphery”.
Claim 17 contains the trademark/trade name 3M™ Single Coated Polyurethane Medical Tape on Poly carrier with Liner (product #9836). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe Polyurethane medical tape and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as Polyurethane medical tape.
Claim 18 contains the trademark/trade name 3M™ CoTran™ 9720 Backing. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a Polyethylene film and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as polyethylene film.
Claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogart (US 5,512,041) in view of Sessions (US 4,884,563). In regards to claim 1, Bogart discloses a wound barrier (50; see [Col 3 ln 35-40]; see figure 1), configured to attach to the skin around a wound site (50 being a wound dressing is configured to attach to skin around a wound site using its pressure sensitive adhesive), said wound barrier (50) comprising:
a backing layer (51; see [Col 3 ln 35-40]; see figure 3) comprising an underside and a top surface (60 and 63; see [Col 4 ln 35-40]; see figure 3);
an adhesive layer (72; see [Col 5 ln 13-18]; see figure 3) on the underside (60) of the backing layer (51; see figure 3)
an adhesive deadening layer (80; see [Col 5 ln 35-40]; see figure 3) disposed over a portion of the adhesive layer (72; see figure 2), such that there is defined a non-adhesive area (area covered by 80; see [Col 5 ln 35-40] in reference to 80 being a non-adherent portion of the dressing; see figure 1) and an adhesive border (86; see [Col 5 ln 45-50]; see figure 1) that surrounds the non-adhesive area (area covered by 80; see figure 1) and is substantially at the periphery of the backing layer (51; see figure 1).
Bogart does not disclose a casting sheet removably attached to the top surface of the backing layer.
However, Sessions teaches an analogous wound dressing (1; see [col 6 ln 29-35]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous backing layer (10; see [Col 7 ln 60-68]; see figure 3); wherein the wound dressing (1) comprises a casting sheet (15; see [Col 8 ln 1-8]; see figure 3) removably attached to a top surface of the backing layer (10; see [Col 8 ln 10-30] in reference to a removal of 15 from 10; see figure 3 that 15 is disposed on a top surface of 10) for the purpose of providing a means for manipulation and application of the wound dressing without interaction or touching the adhesive of the backing layer which is placed against the patient’s skin (see [Col 8 ln 15-25]).
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 top surface of the backing layer as disclosed by Bogart and to have included the casting layer as taught by Sessions in order to have provided an improved wound dressing that would add the benefit of providing a means for manipulation and application of the wound dressing without interaction or touching the adhesive of the backing layer which is placed against the patient’s skin (see [Col 8 ln 15-25]).
In regards to claim 2, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses further comprising a release liner (92; see [Col 5 ln 50-55]; see figure 2) removably attached to an underside of the backing layer (51; see figure 2) and covering the adhesive border (86; see figure 2 that 92 covers the adhesive layer of 51).
In regards to claim 3, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart as now modified further discloses wherein the backing layer (51), casting sheet (15 of Sessions), and adhesive layer (72) comprise a compound material (the aforementioned structures are all portions of the same wound dressing as now combined, and thus in combination comprise different materials which form a whole; thus, the materials of the aforementioned structures together are considered a “compound material”; this consideration is furthered by Applicant’s specification page 3 which states a compound material is nothing more than a backing layer, with an adhesive on one side with a casting sheet on the other side).
In regards to claim 4, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses wherein the compound material (combination of 51 and 72 of Bogart, and 15 of Sessions) is a medical tape (Tape is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a narrow flexible strip or band: such as adhesive tape (used to fasten) (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tape); 51 and 72 of Bogart at least are a flexible strip of material with a medical grade pressure sensitive adhesive applied to one side (see [Col 5 ln 13-18]), is capable for fastening two structures together (in the instant case, the two sides of a wound), and is considered to be a medical tape).
In regards to claim 5, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses wherein the adhesive layer (72) comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive (see [Abstract]).
In regards to claim 6, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses wherein the backing sheet (51) comprises an oxygen permeable polyurethane (see [Col 3 ln 48-64]; and [Col 5 ln 3-7]).
In regards to claim 10, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses wherein the non-adhesive area (86) defined by the adhesive deadening layer (80) comprises a buffer zone (zone defined by 80) that surrounds a wound site zone (80 is applied over a user’s wound, and thus, the borders of 80 which define the buffer zone surround the wound site in which 80 has been applied over; see [Col 5 ln 58-61]), such that, when the wound barrier (50) is applied to the skin around a wound site (see [Col 5 ln 58-61]), the buffer zone (zone defined by 80) minimizes the tension applied to the wound site by the wound site zone (80 lacking adhesive applies no tension to the user’s wound site, and thus minimizes the tension applied by the adhesive layer 72 applied around the user’s wound site).
In regards to claim 11, Bogart discloses A method for covering a wound site (see [Col 2 ln 53-64]), the method comprising: obtaining a wound barrier (50; see [Col 3 ln 35-40]; see figure 1) comprising,
a backing layer (51; see [Col 3 ln 35-40]; see figure 3) comprising an underside and a top surface (60 and 63; see [Col 4 ln 35-40]; see figure 3);
an adhesive layer (72; see [Col 5 ln 13-18]; see figure 3) on the underside (60) of the backing layer (51; see figure 3) ;
an adhesive deadening layer (80; see [Col 5 ln 35-40]; see figure 3) disposed over a portion of the adhesive layer (72; see figure 2), such that the adhesive deadening layer (80) defines a non-adhesive area (area covered by 80; see [Col 5 ln 35-40] in reference to 80 being a non-adherent portion of the dressing; see figure 1) surrounded by an adhesive border (86; see [Col 5 ln 45-50]; see figure 1) that is substantially at the periphery of the backing layer (51; see figure 1);
applying the adhesive border (86) to the skin (see [Col 5 ln 40-50]), wherein the non-adhesive area (area covered by 80) is over the wound site and the adhesive border surrounds the wound site (see [Col 5 ln 30-60]).
Bogart does not disclose a casting sheet removably attached to the top surface of the backing layer.
However, Sessions teaches an analogous wound dressing (1; see [col 6 ln 29-35]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous backing layer (10; see [Col 7 ln 60-68]; see figure 3); wherein the wound dressing (1) comprises a casting sheet (15; see [Col 8 ln 1-8]; see figure 3) removably attached to a top surface of the backing layer (10; see [Col 8 ln 10-30] in reference to a removal of 15 from 10; see figure 3 that 15 is disposed on a top surface of 10) for the purpose of providing a means for manipulation and application of the wound dressing without interaction or touching the adhesive of the backing layer which is placed against the patient’s skin (see [Col 8 ln 15-25]).
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 top surface of the backing layer as disclosed by Bogart and to have included the casting layer as taught by Sessions in order to have provided an improved wound dressing that would add the benefit of providing a means for manipulation and application of the wound dressing without interaction or touching the adhesive of the backing layer which is placed against the patient’s skin (see [Col 8 ln 15-25]).
In regards to claim 12, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses further comprising a release liner (92; see [Col 5 ln 50-55]; see figure 2) that covers an underside of the backing layer (51; see figure 2) including the adhesive border (86; see figure 2 that 92 covers the adhesive layer of 51), and the method further comprises removing the release liner (92) prior to applying the adhesive border (86) to the skin (see [col 5 ln 58-61]).
In regards to claim 13, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart as now modified by Sessions further discloses removing the casting sheet (15 of Sessions) after the wound barrier (50 of Bogart) is attached to the skin (see Sessions [Col 8 ln 10-30]).
In regards to claim 14, Bogart discloses A method for manufacturing a wound barrier (50; see [Col 3 ln 35-40]; see figure 1) comprising:
obtaining a compound material (51, 72, and 80; the aforementioned structures are all portions of the same wound dressing, and thus in combination comprise different materials which form a whole, thus the materials of the aforementioned structures together are considered a “compound material”) comprising:
a backing layer (51; see [Col 3 ln 35-40]; see figure 3) comprising an underside and a top surface (60 and 63; see [Col 4 ln 35-40]; see figure 3);
an adhesive layer (72; see [Col 5 ln 13-18]; see figure 3) on the underside (60) of the backing layer (51; see figure 3); and
applying an adhesive deadening layer (80; see [Col 5 ln 35-40]; see figure 3) to the adhesive layer (72; see [Col 5 ln 40-50]; see figure 2), to define a non-adhesive area (area covered by 80; see [Col 5 ln 35-40] in reference to 80 being a non-adherent portion of the dressing; see figure 1) surrounded by an adhesive border (86; see [Col 5 ln 45-50]; see figure 1) at substantially the periphery of the backing layer (51; see figure 1);
Bogart does not disclose a casting sheet removably attached to the top surface of the backing layer.
However, Sessions teaches an analogous wound dressing (1; see [col 6 ln 29-35]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous backing layer (10; see [Col 7 ln 60-68]; see figure 3); wherein the wound dressing (1) comprises a casting sheet (15; see [Col 8 ln 1-8]; see figure 3) removably attached to a top surface of the backing layer (10; see [Col 8 ln 10-30] in reference to a removal of 15 from 10; see figure 3 that 15 is disposed on a top surface of 10) for the purpose of providing a means for manipulation and application of the wound dressing without interaction or touching the adhesive of the backing layer which is placed against the patient’s skin (see [Col 8 ln 15-25]).
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 top surface of the backing layer as disclosed by Bogart and to have included the casting layer as taught by Sessions in order to have provided an improved wound dressing that would add the benefit of providing a means for manipulation and application of the wound dressing without interaction or touching the adhesive of the backing layer which is placed against the patient’s skin (see [Col 8 ln 15-25]).
In regards to claim 15, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart as now modified further discloses wherein the compound material (51, 72, and 80 of Bogart, as now modified to include 15 of Sessions) further comprises a release liner (90; see [0050]; see figure 2) that covers the adhesive layer (72; see figure 2).
Bogart as now modified by Sessions does not explicitly disclose the method further comprises removing the release liner before applying the adhesive deadening layer.
However, Bogart does disclose a sequential addition of each feature of the compound layer (see [Col 4 ln [30-40] in reference to laminating 52 and 54; see [Col 5 ln 19-24] in reference to the application of 74 by adherence to the adhesive layer; [Col 5 ln 40-50] in reference to the application of 80 over 74 by adherence to the adhesive layer; and see [Col 5 ln 50-56] in reference to a covering of 80 via using the release liner 90). Bogart’s use of release liner 90 is for the conventional use in wound dressings of protecting the adhesive of the bandage prior to applying the adhesive to a user’s wound site (see [Col 5 ln 50-61]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sequential method of manufacturing the wound barrier of Bogart as now modified by Sessions by modifying the order in which the structures were applied onto the compound material’s adhesive layer such that the release liner is applied to the compound layer first, prior to the steps of applying the pad and adhesive deadening layer to the adhesive layer (thus requiring a removal of the release liner from the adhesive layer prior to their application to the adhesive layer) in order to have provided an improved sequential method of forming the wound barrier which comprises a release liner first positioned on the adhesive layer such that the release liner maintains and protects the adhesive of the adhesive layer ensuring that there is no contamination of the adhesive layer which would prevent the securement of the pad and adhesive deadening layer to said adhesive layer.
Such a modification is further held to be obvious since it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (See MPEP 2144.04 IV C, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)). In the instant case, Applicant has not provided a criticality on the exact steps of removing the release liner from the compound material prior to the application of the adhesive deadening layer. Instead it appears that this step is purely a consequence due to Applicant’s decision to combine two known and publicly available 3M™ products #9836, and #9720 as described in [0024-0027] of Applicant’s specification.
In regards to claim 16, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses further comprising applying a release liner (90; see [col 5 ln 51-57]; see figure 2) to the underside of the backing layer (51; see figure 2) to cover the non-adhesive area (area defined by 80) and the adhesive border (86; see figure 2 that 90 covers each claimed area).
In regards to claim 17, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses wherein the compound material (51, 72, and 80 of Bogart, as now modified to include 15 of Sessions) comprises (a polyurethane medical tape) (see 112b interpretation above; see [Col 3 ln 48-55] in reference to 54 of 51 being a polyurethane film; the definition of tape is provided above; 51 and 72 of Bogart at least are a flexible strip of material with a medical grade pressure sensitive adhesive applied to one side (see [Col 5 ln 13-18]), is capable for fastening two structures together (in the instant case, the two sides of a wound), and is considered to be a polyurethane medical tape).
In regards to claim 18, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses wherein the adhesive deadening layer (80) comprises (a polyethylene film) (see 112b interpretation above; see [Col 5 ln 35-40] in reference to 80 being a polyethylene strip; and as seen in figure 3 is formed as a film to be applied over 74).
In regards to claim 20, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart further discloses multiple undisclosed sizes of the wound barrier (see [Col 4 ln 1-13] in reference to the MVTR varying from one size dressing to the next, implying that the dressing can come in multiple sizes), and that the non-adhesive area is smaller than the overall size of the bandage (see [Col 5 ln 40-50]).
Bogart as now modified by Sessions does not explicitly disclose wherein the wound barrier is 7.5” wide and approximately 7.75” long, with a non-adhesive area that is 6” wide and 6.25” long.
However, Sessions further teaches wherein the wound barrier is 7.5” wide and approximately 7.75” long (see [Col 13 ln 30-35] in reference to the size ranges of the wound dressings being from .2x1 inch to 18x18 inches, 7.5” wide and 7.75” long being a size which falls within said range), with a non-adhesive area that is 6” wide, and 6.25” long (see [Col 10 ln 35-45] in reference to the adhesive free area being less than 95% of the surface area of the film sheet; thus disclosing the adhesive free area can have a size ranging at least from .18x.8”-16.2x16.2”; in the instant case 6” wide, and 6.25” long is less than 95% of a dressing which is 7.5” wide and 7.75” long (specifically 80% the size)).
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 width and length of the wound barrier, and the width and length of the non-adhesive area as taught by Bogart as now modified by Sessions and to have formed the dressing with the dimensions as further taught by Sessions in order to have provided an improved wound dressing which can be sized to adequately cover a wound site of a user. Such a modification of size of the wound barrier and non-adhesive area is further held to be obvious since it has been held that “(i)n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Further such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In the instant case, the wound barrier of Bogart as now modified by Sessions would not perform differently, and would still have the functionality of being a wound barrier when having the claimed relative dimensions.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogart as now modified by Sessions as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Langer et al. (US 2014/0323996 A1) (hereinafter Langer).
In regards to claim 7, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above
Bogart further discloses wherein the adhesive deadening layer (80) is oxygen permeable (see [Col 5 ln 62-67]).
Bogart as now modified by Sessions does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive deadening layer has a Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate (MVTR) of below 10 grams per meter per 24 hours.
However, Langer teaches an analogous wound barrier (patch as seen in figure 1, while described as being a drug administration patch, is capable of being applied over wounds and applying therapeutic drugs to a wound site) which comprises an analogous polyethylene film (control membrane; see [0075]; see figure 1) wherein the polyethylene layer (control membrane) has a Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate (MVTR) of below 10 grams per meter per 24 hours (see [0075] in reference to the control membrane being preferably formed from CoTran™9720 (the same material as applicant’s polyethylene film and thus is considered to exhibit the same material properties as claimed; see MPEP 2112.01).
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 adhesive deadening layer as disclosed by Bogart as now modified by Sessions, and to have formed the adhesive deadening layer from the polyethylene monolayer as taught by Langer in order to have provided an improved adhesive deadening layer which would add the benefit of simplifying and reducing the costs of the method of manufacturing the adhesive deadening layer given that the formation of single material layers is easier and costs less when compared to forming copolymers such as the polyethylene and ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer.
In regards to claim 8, Bogart as now modified by Sessions and Langer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart as now modified further discloses wherein the adhesive deadening layer (80 of Bogart as now modified) has a Moisture Vapor Transmission Rate (MVTR) of 6 grams per meter per 24 hours and an oxygen transmission rate of 3840 cc/m/24 hours (80 of Bogart as now modified by Langer is formed from the same polyethylene material as described in applicant’s specification and thus is considered to exhibit the same material properties as claimed; see MPEP 2112.01).
In regards to claim 9, Bogart as now modified by Sessions and Langer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart as now modified further discloses wherein the adhesive deadening layer (80 of Bogart as now modified) comprises a polyethylene film (80 of Bogart as now modified by Langer is formed from a polyethylene film).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogart as now modified by Sessions as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Montulet (US 2015/0133844 A1).
In regards to claim 19, Bogart as now modified by Sessions discloses the invention as discussed above.
Bogart as now modified by Sessions does not disclose scoring a strip of the adhesive layer to expose a portion of the backing layer to create a tab at an edge of the backing layer.
However, Montulet teaches an analogous method of manufacturing an analogous wound barrier (10; see [0027]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous adhesive layer (12) and an analogous backing layer (11); further comprising the step of scoring a strip of the adhesive layer (12; see [0027] in reference to weakness 16; see [0034] in reference to 16 being formed via scoring; and further as seen in figure 2, 16 extends through to the adhesive layer and is considered to be “scoring a strip of the adhesive layer” to expose a portion of the backing layer (11; full perforation as described in [0034] is considered to be fully through 10 and thus would expose a minor portion of 11 via the full perforations) to create a tab (15) at an edge of the backing layer (11; see [0027]) for the purpose of aiding in the removal of the wound barrier via pulling on the tab created by the scoring (see [0027]).
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 method of manufacturing the wound barrier as disclosed by Bogart as now modified by Sessions and to have included the step of scoring the adhesive layer to expose a portion of the backing layer, creating a tab at an edge of the backing layer as taught by Montulet in order to have provided an improved wound barrier which would add the benefit of providing a means of aiding in the removal of the wound barrier via pulling on the tab created by the scoring (see [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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 on 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3786