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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities which require appropriate correction:
In claim 1, line 5: “provide” should be “providing”.
In claim 1, line 7 should be amended to recite: “…wherein each stiffening element…”.
In claim 1, line 9 should be amended to recite “…wherein the first end is located closer…”.
In claim 1, line 14 should be amended to recite “…length
In claim 3, line 2 should be amended to recite “…the length of each of the stiffening elements…”.
In claim 19 line 11: “measure” should be “measured”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Propp (US 7294752) in view of Dicosmo (US 2016/0317699).
With respect to claim 1, Propp discloses a medical dressing (dressing 10; fig 1) comprising:
a backing layer (fabric layer 12; fig 1-2) comprising a first major surface (side 18), a second major surface (side 20), and a perimeter (outer perimeter shown in fig 1) defining a geometric center of the backing layer (shown in figs 1-2; the center of both the stiffening system 30 and the layer 12 is aligned along an axis that runs along center line cut 66);
adhesive on at least a portion of the first major surface of the backing layer (side 18 includes adhesive – col 3 lines 62-64); and
a stiffening system (reinforcing structure 30; col 4 lines 5-67) fixedly attached to the backing layer (col 4 lines 5-10), wherein the stiffening system (30) comprises an array of a plurality of stiffening elements (ribs 38; figs 1-2) wherein each stiffening element (38) of the plurality of stiffening elements comprises:
a first end and a second end located distal from the first end (as shown in fig 1), wherein the first end is located closer to the geometric center of the backing than the second end (one end is closer to opening 40 as shown in fig 1-2), and wherein the second end (terminal end 44) is located closer to the perimeter of the backing layer than the first end (as shown in figs 1-2 the terminal end 44 of each rib 38 is closer to the perimeter edge of the layer 12);
a length defining a stiffening axis extending from the first end to the second end of the stiffening element (length is interpreted as being measured from the end of each rib 38 nearest opening 40 to the end 44 as shown in fig 2; identified in annotated fig 2), wherein a width of the stiffening element as measured transverse to the length (length and width dimensions of each rib 38 are identified in annotated fig 2) that is less than the length (as shown in fig 2, the length of each rib 38 is greater than the width of each rib); wherein the stiffening axis extends away from the first end and towards the perimeter of the backing layer (stiffening axis is interpreted as extending away from the end at opening 40 towards end 44 which is also in a direction going towards the perimeter of layer 12; see figs 1-2).
ANNOTATED FIG 2 of Propp (US 7294752):
PNG
media_image1.png
360
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Propp does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer and the adhesive provide a contact transparent adhesive composite.
Dicosmo, however, teaches use of “thin transparent polymer material such as a film backing material, woven or knitted fabric, a nonwoven fabric or a plastic or polymeric material such as cotton” for making IV dressings (para [0016]). 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 woven or nonwoven fabric layer 12 of Propp from a transparent material since Dicosmo teaches that such materials are routinely used for forming IV dressings such as the one disclosed in Propp. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a user with the ability to view the condition of an infusion site through the dressing and, also, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 3, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the widths of each stiffening element of the plurality of stiffening elements are uniform along the length of the stiffening element (col 8 lines 39-40).
With respect to claim 4, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the second ends of the plurality of stiffening elements (terminal ends 44) define a stiffening system perimeter (the terminal ends 44 of the ribs 38 define a region perimeter and provide a border region in the spacing between the ends 44 of the reinforcing structure and the perimeter edge of layer 12 as shown in fig 1), wherein the geometric center of the backing layer is located within the stiffening system perimeter (as shown in fig 1, the center of both the stiffening system 30 and the layer 12 is aligned along an axis that runs along center line cut 66 which is within the area that contains the stiffening system 30).
With respect to claim 5, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the second ends of the plurality of stiffening elements (terminal ends 44) define a stiffening system perimeter (the terminal ends 44 of the ribs 38 define a region perimeter and provide a border region in the spacing between the ends 44 of the reinforcing structure and the perimeter edge of layer 12 as shown in fig 1), and the stiffening system perimeter defines a stiffening system geometric center that is proximate the geometric center of the backing layer (as shown in fig 1, the center of both the stiffening system 30 and the layer 12 is aligned along an axis that runs along center line cut 66 which is within the area that contains the stiffening system 30).
With respect to claim 6, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the second ends of the plurality of stiffening elements (terminal ends 44) define a stiffening system perimeter (the terminal ends 44 of the ribs 38 define a region perimeter and provide a border region in the spacing between the ends 44 of the reinforcing structure and the perimeter edge of layer 12 as shown in fig 1), and the stiffening system perimeter defines a stiffening system area (the area defined interiorly of the perimeter is shown in fig 1).
Propp does not, however, explicitly disclose that the stiffening system area occupies, specifically, 50% or more of a backing area defined by the first major surface of the backing layer. Figure 1 of Propp does, however, appear to illustrate that the system 30 occupies approximately 50% of the surface area of layer 12. Additionally, Propp teaches that the reinforcing structure 30 strengthens the dressing 10 by making it less floppy for easier application to a patient's skin and spreads the external forces that are exerted on the dressing by the tubing over a large surface area, greatly increasing the dressing's resistance to premature separation from the patient's skin (col 4 lines 38-67). 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 device of Propp in view of Dicosmo so that the stiffening system area occupies, specifically, 50% or more of a backing area defined by the first major surface of the backing layer in order to further strengthen the dressing and spread the external forces that are exerted on the dressing by the tubing over a larger surface area and, furthermore, because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 7, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the second ends of the plurality of stiffening elements (terminal ends 44) define a stiffening system perimeter (the terminal ends 44 of the ribs 38 define a region perimeter and provide a border region in the spacing between the ends 44 of the reinforcing structure and the perimeter edge of layer 12 as shown in fig 1), and the stiffening system perimeter defines a stiffening system area (the area defined interiorly of the perimeter is shown in fig 1).
Propp does not, however, explicitly disclose that the stiffening system area occupies, specifically, 95% or less of a backing area of the backing layer. Figure 1 of Propp does, however, appear to illustrate that the system 30 occupies approximately 50% of the surface area of layer 12 (which is less than 95% and thus within the claimed range). Additionally, Propp teaches that the reinforcing structure 30 strengthens the dressing 10 and makes it less floppy for easier application to a patient's skin (col 4 lines 38-67). 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 device of Propp in view of Dicosmo so that the stiffening system area occupies, specifically, 95% or less of a backing area of the backing layer in order to strengthen the dressing while still allowing some flexibility for application to the skin. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to configured the stiffening system to occupy, specifically, 95% or less of the backing area because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 8, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the second ends of the plurality of stiffening elements are spaced inward from the backing layer perimeter such that the second ends of the plurality of stiffening elements are surrounded by the backing layer (the terminal ends 44 of the ribs 38 define a region perimeter and provide a border region in the spacing between the ends 44 of the reinforcing structure and the perimeter edge of layer 12 as shown in fig 1).
With respect to claim 9, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the first ends of two or more stiffening elements of the plurality of stiffening elements are attached to each other (attached via the reinforcing structure at opening 40 as shown in fig 1).
With respect to claim 10, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the stiffening system comprises a central support (reinforcing structure at opening 40) proximate the geometric center (as shown in fig 1), wherein the first ends of two or more stiffening elements of the plurality of stiffening elements are attached to the central support (as shown in fig 1).
With respect to claim 11, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the stiffening system comprises a central support (reinforcing structure at opening 40) proximate the geometric center (as shown in fig 1), wherein the first ends of each of the stiffening elements of the plurality of stiffening elements are attached to the central support (as shown in fig 1 each rib 38 is attached to the structure which defines opening 40).
With respect to claim 12, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 10) and Propp also discloses that the central support comprises a ring defining a central support aperture located within the ring (the reinforcing structure may have a hub and spoke shape wherein the central body 36 of the structure 30 may be oval shaped which is interpreted to be a ring shape – see col 4 lines 15-37; there is an opening 40 at the center as shown in fig 1).
With respect to claim 13, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 11) and Propp also discloses that the central support comprises a ring defining a central support aperture located within the ring (the reinforcing structure may have a hub and spoke shape wherein the central body 36 of the structure 30 may be oval shaped which is interpreted to be a ring shape – see col 4 lines 15-37; there is an opening 40 at the center as shown in fig 1).
With respect to claim 15, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the backing layer (12) comprises a backing layer modulus of elasticity (inherent material property), the stiffening system (30) comprises a stiffening system modulus of elasticity (inherent material property), and the stiffening system modulus of elasticity is greater than the backing layer modulus of elasticity (the reinforcing structure 30 strengthens the dressing 10 by making it less floppy for easier application to a patient's skin – col 4 lines 38-66; the structure 30 must be more stiff and resist deformation more than the layer 12 in order to render the structure “less floppy”).
With respect to claim 16, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that a stiffening element of the stiffening system (30) comprises a stiffening element flexural rigidity (inherent material property) that is greater than a backing layer flexural rigidity (inherent material property) of a portion of the backing layer (12) to which the stiffening element is fixedly attached (the reinforcing structure 30 strengthens the dressing 10 by making it less floppy for easier application to a patient's skin – col 4 lines 38-66; the structure 30 must resist bending more than the layer 12 in order to render the structure “less floppy”).
With respect to claim 17, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Propp also discloses that the stiffening system consists essentially of a polymeric film (the reinforcing structure 30 is disclosed as being made from polypropylene which is a polymeric film material – see col 4 lines 10-14).
With respect to claim 19, Propp discloses a medical dressing (dressing 10; fig 1) comprising:
a backing layer (fabric layer 12; fig 1-2) comprising a first major surface (side 18), a second major surface (side 20), and a perimeter (outer perimeter shown in fig 1) defining a geometric center of the backing layer (shown in figs 1-2; the center of both the stiffening system 30 and the layer 12 is aligned along an axis that runs along center line cut 66);
adhesive on at least a portion of the first major surface of the backing layer (side 18 includes adhesive – col 3 lines 62-64); and
a stiffening system (reinforcing structure 30; col 4 lines 5-67) fixedly attached to the backing layer (col 4 lines5-10), wherein the stiffening system (30) defines a stiffening axis extending across the backing layer in a selected direction (stiffening axis is interpreted as being defined along the length direction as identified in annotated fig 2), wherein the stiffening system (30) comprises a plurality of stiffening elements on the backing layer (ribs 38; figs 1-2) wherein each stiffening element (38) of the plurality of stiffening elements comprises:
a first end and a second end (as shown in fig 1) defining a length along a longitudinal axis (identified in annotated fig 2) extending through the first and second ends (length is interpreted as being measured from the end of each rib 38 nearest opening 40 to the end 44 as shown in fig 2; identified in annotated fig 2) and a width of the stiffening element is measured transverse to the length (length and width dimensions of each rib 38 are identified in annotated fig 2);
wherein the first end and the second end of each stiffening element of plurality of stiffening elements is spaced inward from the perimeter of the backing layer (the terminal ends 44 of the ribs 38 define a region perimeter and provide a border region in the spacing between the ends 44 of the reinforcing structure and the perimeter edge of layer 12 as shown in fig 1; as shown in fig 1 the end of each rib 38 nearest opening 40 and the ends 44 are spaced inwardly from this perimeter); and wherein the longitudinal axis is aligned with the stiffening axis of the stiffening system (as shown in annotated fig 2).
ANNOTATED FIG 2 of Propp (US 7294752):
PNG
media_image1.png
360
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Propp does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer and the adhesive form a substantially contact transparent backing layer/adhesive composite.
Dicosmo, however, teaches use of “thin transparent polymer material such as a film backing material, woven or knitted fabric, a nonwoven fabric or a plastic or polymeric material such as cotton” for making iv dressings (para [0016]). 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 woven or nonwoven fabric layer 12 of Propp from a transparent material since Dicosmo teaches that such materials are routinely used for forming iv dressings such as the one disclosed in Propp. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a user with the ability to view the condition of an infusion site through the dressing and, also, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Propp (US 7294752) in view of Dicosmo (US 2016/0317699) and further in view of Fabo et al (US 2011/0098621).
With respect to claim 2, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but is silent with respect to whether one or more of the stiffening elements of the stiffening system comprise transparent stiffening elements.
Fabo, however, teaches a transparent dressing wherein all layers of the dressing, including the stiffening layer 4, are transparent (see claim 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed stiffening elements on the device of Propp in view of Dicosmo from a transparent material as taught by Fabo in order to provide a user with the ability to view the condition of an infusion site through the dressing and, also, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Propp (US 7294752) in view of Dicosmo (US 2016/0317699) and further in view of Propp (US 2010/0198161 A1) (hereinafter Propp ‘161).
With respect to claim 14, Propp in view of Dicosmo discloses the dressing substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that two or more stiffening elements of the plurality of stiffening elements comprise a plurality of branches extending outwardly away from the stiffening axis of the second ends of the two or more stiffening elements.
Propp ‘161, however, teaches an analogous device which includes a plurality of stiffening elements (ribs 138; fig 1) wherein two or more stiffening elements of the plurality of stiffening elements comprise a plurality of branches extending outwardly away from the stiffening axis of the second ends of the two or more stiffening elements (as identified in annotated fig 1).
ANNOTED FIG 1 OF Propp ‘161:
PNG
media_image2.png
410
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 stiffening elements of Propp in view of Dicosmo so that two or more stiffening elements of the plurality of stiffening elements comprise a plurality of branches extending outwardly away from the stiffening axis of the second ends of the two or more stiffening elements, like in Propp ‘161, in order to further spread the external forces that are exerted on the dressing by the tubing over a large surface area, greatly increasing the dressing's resistance to premature separation from the patient's skin (Propp ‘161 para [0032]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Propp (US 7294752) in view of Dicosmo (US 2016/0317699) and further in view of Rogozinski (US 5264218).
With respect to claim 18, Propp discloses a medical dressing (dressing 10; fig 1) comprising:
a backing layer (fabric layer 12; fig 1-2) comprising a first major surface (side 18), a second major surface (side 20), and a perimeter (outer perimeter shown in fig 1) defining a geometric center of the backing layer (shown in figs 1-2; the center of both the stiffening system 30 and the layer 12 is aligned along an axis that runs along center line cut 66);
adhesive on at least a portion of the first major surface of the backing layer (side 18 includes adhesive – col 3 lines 62-64); and
a stiffening system (reinforcing structure 30; col 4 lines 5-67) fixedly attached to the backing layer (col 4 lines5-10), wherein the stiffening system (30) comprises a plurality of stiffening elements (ribs 38; figs 1-2).
Propp does not, however, explicitly disclose that the backing layer and the adhesive form a substantially contact transparent backing layer/adhesive composite.
Dicosmo, however, teaches use of “thin transparent polymer material such as a film backing material, woven or knitted fabric, a nonwoven fabric or a plastic or polymeric material such as cotton” for making iv dressings (para [0016]). 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 woven or nonwoven fabric layer 12 of Propp from a transparent material since Dicosmo teaches that such materials are routinely used for forming iv dressings such as the one disclosed in Propp. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a user with the ability to view the condition of an infusion site through the dressing and, also, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Propp in view of Dicosmo does not, however, disclose a plurality of nested ring-shape stiffening elements, each ring having a radial width less than a ring length, wherein the radial width is defined along a radial axis extending outwardly from a center of the ring and the ring length is defined along a line following a center of the radial width.
Rogozinski teaches providing a plurality of nested ring-shaped structures (foam cut into a plurality of concentric rings A, B, C and D as shown in fig 1) wherein each ring has a radial width less than a ring length (as shown in fig 1 the rings A-D are thin and thus have a width that is less than the length), wherein the radial width is defined along a radial axis extending outwardly from a center of the ring and the ring length is defined along a line following a center of the radial width (width is interpreted as being the dimension of each ring in a direction horizontally across each ring from the center at section D moving outward towards/beyond section A while the length is interpreted as being the measurement of each ring around the ring). Rogozinski also teaches that the plurality of concentric rings are provided to allow a user to control the evaporation rate of the tissue fluid of the wound to insure an optimum wound environment by using more and more concentric foam rings to thereby progressively reduce the available surface which can transport moisture/vapor (col 5 lines 30-40). 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 stiffening elements of Propp in view of Dicosmo as a plurality of nested ring-shaped stiffening elements, each ring having a radial width less than a ring length, wherein the radial width is defined along a radial axis extending outwardly from a center of the ring and the ring length is defined along a line following a center of the radial width, as taught by Rogozinski, in order to allow for control of the evaporation rate of wound fluid and thereby provide an optimum wound environment.
Double Patenting
NON-STATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 11-12, 14, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12201501.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are a broader recitation of the invention than that of the patented application. Specifically, claims 1 and 19 of the present application and claim 1 of US Patent No. 12202501 (the ‘501 patent) differ in that the patented claims include more elements than the claims in the present application and, therefore, are more narrow and specific. Thus, claim 1 of the ‘501 Patent is in effect a “species” of the broader, “generic” invention recited in claims 1 and 19 of the present application. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by the species. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, claims 1 and 19 of the present application are anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘501 patent and, therefore, are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘501 patent.
All of the limitations of claim 2 can be found in claim 2 of the ‘501 Patent; All of the limitations of claim 3 can be found in claim 11 of the ‘501 Patent; All of the limitations of claim 4 can be found in claim 12 of the ‘501 Patent; All of the limitations of claim 6 can be found in claim 14 of the ‘501 Patent; All of the limitations of claim 8 can be found in claim 16 of the ‘501 Patent; All of the limitations of claim 9 can be found in claim 17 of the ‘501 Patent; All of the limitations of claim 10 can be found in claim 18 of the ‘501 Patent.
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