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 (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 8/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/27/2026.
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 6-7 and 14-15 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 6 recites the limitation "the synthetic fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 6 should have been written to depend from claim 5 which does provide proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 5 instead of claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the natural fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 7 should have been written to depend from claim 5 which does provide proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 5 instead of claim 4.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the hydrophilic fibers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 7 should have been written to depend from claim 13 which does provide proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, claim 15 is being interpreted as being dependent on claim 13 instead of claim 12. Furthermore, the recitation “hydrophilic fibers comprise one or more of starches, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polycarboxylic acids, esters, salts, amides of poly(meth)acrylic acid, copolymers of poly(methyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride), and polyglycols” is unclear. Applicant’s specification discloses that “hydrophilic coatings may be made from starches or hydrophilic polymers such as polyvinylpyrrolidone, poly-carboxyl acids, esters, salts and amides of poly(meth)acrylic acid, copolymers of poly (methyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride), and polyglycols like polyethylene glycol”. Therefore, it appears that it is a hydrophilic coating that comprises these materials and coat fibers that are hydrophobic and not that the fibers themselves are of these materials. A similar issue appears in claim 14 which recites “hydrophilic fibers coat hydrophobic polymers”. It is unclear how fibers “coat” polymers. See paragraph [0035] of applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binder et al (US 7,556,610 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Binder discloses a heat exchanger (Figure 1; Col. 6, lines 30-38) comprising: an elastic bandage (Abstract; Figure 1), comprising an elastomeric substrate (10; Col. 4, lines 26-35) with two opposing surfaces (Figure 2); and a non-adhering film (5; Col. 3, lines 7-10; Col. 4, lines 1-25) applied to at least a portion of at least one surface of the elastomeric substrate (Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Binder discloses wherein the elastic bandage is configured to be rolled into a cylindrical form (Figure 5-6; Col. 5, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, Binder discloses wherein the non-adhering film is disposed on an inner surface of the elastomeric substrate, the non-adhering film preventing substantial contact between overlapping layers of the elastomeric substrate when rolled into the cylindrical form (Figures 2 and 6; Col. 5, lines 1-10; Col. 7, lines 11-22).
Regarding claim 4, Binder discloses wherein the non-adhering film comprises a hydrophobic material that includes silicone (Col. 4, lines 1-25), wherein the hydrophobic material comprises a thickness between 0.5 mm to 1 mm (Col. 6, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 5, Binder discloses wherein the elastomeric substrate comprises a blend of synthetic and natural fibers selected from monofilament, multifilament, and staple fibers (Col. 5, lines 53-59).
Regarding claim 6, Binder discloses wherein the synthetic fibers comprise one or more of polyesters, polyamides, polypropylene, polylactic acids (PLA), polyethyleneterephthalates (PET), polyether-polyurea copolymers, styrene butadiene copolymers, elastane, and polyisoprene (Col. 5, lines 53-59).
Regarding claim 7, Binder discloses wherein the natural fibers comprise one or more of cotton, isoprene, polyisoprene, rayon, acetate, and triacetate (Col. 5, lines 53-59).
Regarding claim 11, Binder discloses wherein the elastic bandage stretches to between 30-90% of its original length (Col. 4, lines 26-35).
Regarding claim 13, Binder discloses wherein the elastomeric substrate includes hydrophilic fibers capable of absorbing biocompatible liquids (Col. 5, lines 46-52).
Regarding claim 16, Binder discloses wherein the elastic bandage is configured to be tubular (when applied, Figure 1).
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delmore et al (US 5,939,339).
Regarding claim 1, Delmore discloses a bandage capable of use as a heat exchanger (Figure 1; abstract) comprising: an elastic bandage (Abstract; Figure 1), comprising an elastomeric substrate (14 or 14/12; Figure 1) with two opposing surfaces (Figure 1); and a non-adhering film (covered with a variety of commercially available wound contact materials such as TEGAPORE woven nylon web, TEGADERM polyurethane film or TEGASORB hydrocolloid (all available from 3M, St. Paul, Minn.) as well as other well known related materials; Col. 6, lines 15-23) applied to at least a portion of at least one surface of the elastomeric substrate (Col. 6, lines 15-23).
Regarding claim 5, Delmore discloses wherein the elastomeric substrate comprises a blend of synthetic and natural fibers selected from monofilament, multifilament, and staple fibers (Col. 4, lines 53-65).
Regarding claim 6, Delmore discloses wherein the synthetic fibers comprise one or more of polyesters, polyamides, polypropylene, polylactic acids (PLA), polyethyleneterephthalates (PET), polyether-polyurea copolymers, styrene butadiene copolymers, elastane, and polyisoprene (Col. 4, lines 53-65).
Regarding claim 7, Delmore discloses wherein the natural fibers comprise one or more of cotton, isoprene, polyisoprene, rayon, acetate, and triacetate (Col. 4, lines 53-65).
Regarding claim 10, Delmore discloses wherein the elastic bandage stretches to between 140% and 300% of its original length (Col. 5, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 12, Delmore discloses wherein the elastic bandage provides a compressive force ranging from 1 mmHg to 70 mmHg (Col. 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 13, Delmore discloses wherein the elastomeric substrate includes hydrophilic fibers capable of absorbing biocompatible liquids (Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 5).
Regarding claim 14, Delmore discloses wherein the hydrophilic fibers coat hydrophobic polymers, the hydrophobic polymers comprising one or more of polyester, polyolefin, polyacrylonitrile, and polyurethane (Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 5).
Regarding claim 15, Delmore discloses wherein the hydrophilic fibers comprise one or more of starches, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polycarboxylic acids, esters, salts, amides of poly(meth)acrylic acid, copolymers of poly(methyl vinyl ether/maleic anhydride), and polyglycols (Col. 2, line 55 to Col. 3, line 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delmore et al (US 5,939,339).
Regarding claims 8-9, Delmore discloses that as applied above and discloses the width of the bandage has a width of 4 inches (Col. 7, lines 47-55). Delmore does not disclose a length of 5.5 yards or 11 yards but does disclose lengths of 2-4.5 meters (or about 5 yards; Col. 8, lines 7-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the bandage of Delmore having a length of 5.5 or 11 yards or any other length suitable to fit larger limbs of a particular user. such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kari Rodriquez whose telephone number is 571-270-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-3 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.
/KARI K RODRIQUEZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights