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, 8, 11-14, 17-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “for protecting a fingertip wound” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to include “configured for” to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and protects a wound” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to recite “protect” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “coated in adhesive” in line 2. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “coated in an adhesive” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein adhesives” in line 1. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “wherein the adhesives” to avoid a lack of clarity in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “can be utilized with a toe”. This limitation should be amended to recite “configured to be utilized” to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 12 should be amended to include a comma between the preamble and body of the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an absorbent pad which covers a wound”. This limitation should be amended to include “configured to” to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the adhesives are used to secure the bandage device onto a user’s skin”. This limitation should be amended to include “configured to” to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the adhesives are used to secure the bandage device onto a user’s skin”. This limitation should be amended to recite “onto a skin of the user” as a user was presented earlier in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the body component protects the fingertip wound from infection or pain”. This limitation should be amended to include “configured to” to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein material” in line 1. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “wherein a material” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 17 should be amended to include a comma between the preamble and body of the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “in antiseptic”. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “an antiseptic” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “with adhesive”. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “with an adhesive” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “securing the device” in line 5. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “securing the bandage device” to maintain consistency and clarity in the claims.
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation “a bandage device that provides a user with a specialized fingertip bandage” in the preamble, then recites structures of the bandage device in the body of the claim. First, as written in the preamble, it is unclear as to if the bandage device is a box or container which provides a user specialized fingertip bandages. However, in view of the claim it is clear that the bandage device is merely a bandage. Thus, it is unclear as to if the bandage device is the same “specialized fingertip bandage” or if the specialized fingertip bandage is a different bandage from the bandage device. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “A bandage device for protecting a fingertip wound”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a wound on the fingertip” in line 6. This limitation is unclear in view of “a fingertip wound” recited in the preamble of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite as to if the “wound on the fingertip” in line 6 is the same as, or different from the fingertip wound recited in the preamble. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same fingertip wound.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a traditional bandage shape”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what shapes Applicant considers to be “traditional”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “which is coated in adhesive”. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “the body component and wing component are secured to the fingertip via adhesives”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the adhesive recited in claim 3 is the same adhesive, or a different adhesive from that recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the adhesive of claim 3 as being the same adhesive recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a rear body component”. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “a body component”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the rear body component recited in claim 4 is a portion of the body component, or a different body component from that recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the rear body component of claim 4 as the same body component recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “which is coated in adhesive”. This limitation is considered unclear in view of claim 1 which recites “the body component and wing component are secured to the fingertip via adhesives”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the adhesive recited in claim 5 is the same adhesive, or a different adhesive from that recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the adhesive of claim 5 as being the same adhesive recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the wing component could also be detached”. The recitation of “could also be detached” renders the claim indefinite as to if the detachment of the wing component via a perforated edge is required by the claim, or merely a preferred embodiment of the wing component which is not required by the prior art to meet the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the body component and the wing component could be various colors or designs”. The recitation of “could be various colors or designs” renders the claim indefinite as to if the various colors and designs of the body component and the wing component are required by the claim, or merely a preferred embodiment of the components which are not required by the prior art to meet the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a bandage device that provides a user with a specialized fingertip bandage” in the preamble, then recites structures of the bandage device in the body of the claim. First, as written in the preamble, it is unclear as to if the bandage device is a box or container which provides a user specialized fingertip bandages. However, in view of the claim it is clear that the bandage device is merely a bandage. Thus, it is unclear as to if the bandage device is the same “specialized fingertip bandage” or if the specialized fingertip bandage is a different bandage from the bandage device. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “A bandage device for protecting a fingertip wound”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a rear face coated in adhesives” in line 3. The recitation of “adhesives” is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming a single adhesive, or a plurality of different adhesives. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a rear face coated in an adhesive”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a rear face coated in adhesives” in line 4. The recitation of “adhesives” is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming a single adhesive, or a plurality of different adhesives. This limitation is also unclear in view of “a rear face coated in adhesives” recited in line 3 which renders the later recitation indefinite as to if the later recited adhesives are the same adhesives, or different adhesives than the earlier recited adhesives. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a rear face coated in the adhesive”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a traditional bandage shape” in line 6. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what shapes Applicant considers to be “traditional”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the adhesives” in line 10. This limitation is unclear because multiple “adhesives” are recited in lines 3 and 4 of the claim. Thus, it is unclear as to which adhesives are being referred to in the limitation “wherein the adhesives”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “wherein the adhesives of the body component and the wing component”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fingertip wound" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the wound of the fingertip”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “protects the fingertip wound from infection”. This limitation is considered unclear because it is unclear as to how the body component is capable of protecting the fingertip wound from microbial infection, given that no antiseptic or other prevention means which are capable of preventing infection are recited in the claim. Thus, it is unclear as to how the body component “protects” the fingertip wound as claimed. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “protects the fingertip wound from…pain”. This limitation is considered unclear because it is unclear as to how the body component is capable of protecting the fingertip wound from pain, given pain is a function of the body controlled by the internal nervous system of the user, and therefore a user may still experience pain while using the body component to cover the fingertip wound. Thus, it is unclear as to how the body component “protects” the fingertip wound as claimed. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein material…can be elastic”. The recitation of “can be elastic” renders the claim indefinite as to if the material being elastic is required by the claim, or merely a preferred embodiment of the material which is not required by the prior art to meet the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “can be elastic to allow the bandage device to be waterproof”. It is unclear as to how an elasticity of the body component and the wing component allow the bandage device to be waterproof given that elasticity and waterproof are two individual material properties of a material which are not explicitly linked to one another. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an adhesive and an adhesive sheet” in line 3. This limitation is unclear as to if Applicant is claiming two forms of adhesive attached to the bandage device, or if this is a typographical error and applicant has intended to claim an adhesive and an adhesive release sheet similar to claim 13. Based on the limitation “removing the adhesive sheet” it would appear that Applicant is claiming the adhesive sheet is an adhesive release sheet. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “an adhesive and an adhesive release sheet”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the back face" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a back face”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the fingertip" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a fingertip”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the finger" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a finger”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the skin" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a skin”.
Claims 6, 8, 10-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim, thereby containing the same offending limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “secured to the fingertip” positively recites part of the human body.
In regards to claim 4, the limitation “connects with the fingertip wound” positively recites part of the human body.
In regards to claim 13, the limitation “the wing component wraps around a fingertip to secure the body component in place” positively recites part of the human body.
In regards to claim 15, the limitation “wherein the wound comprises a scrape, cut, laceration, or other minor wound” positively recites part of the human body.
To obviate a rejection under 35 USC 101, the Office suggests that any claim that would include a human being, or part thereof, within its scope should use “adapted to___” or “adapted for ___” or “configured to” or configured for” to define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter which is a permissible form of expression.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being dependent from a rejected claim, and therefore, contain the same offending limitations.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trujillo et al. (US 2009/0062714 A1) (hereinafter Trujillo).
In regards to claim 1, Trujillo discloses A bandage device (10; see [0017]; see figure 1) that provides a user with a specialized fingertip bandage for protecting a fingertip wound (see figures 1-4), the bandage device (10) comprising:
a body component (50; see [0021]; see figure 1); and
a wing component (52 and 54; see [0021]; see figure 1);
wherein the body component (50) and the wing component (52 and 54) are adapted to secure onto a fingertip (12; see [0017]; see figures 2-4) and protects a wound (18; see [0017]; see figure 2) on the fingertip (12; see figures 2-4); and
further wherein the body component (50) and wing component (52 and 54) are secured to the fingertip (12) via adhesives (see [0025]).
In regards to claim 2, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the body component (50) is a cloth structure (see [0019] in reference to the materials contemplated for use and [0020] in reference to the material may be a mesh (i.e. a porous interwoven cloth)) configured in a traditional bandage shape (see figure 2 that 50 is configured in a traditional, rectangular bandage shape).
In regards to claim 3, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the body component (50) comprises a back face (30 of 50; see [0018]; see figure 1) which is coated in adhesive (see [0025]).
In regards to claim 4, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein a rear body component (see 112b interpretation above; 50) contains an absorbent pad (22; see [0018]; see figure 1) where the bandage device (10) connects with the fingertip wound (see figure 2).
In regards to claim 5, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the wing component (52 and 54) comprises a back face (30 of 52 and 54; see [0018]; see figure 1) coated in adhesive as well (see [0025]).
In regards to claim 6, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the wing component (52 and 54) can be detached from the body component (50) with scissors (20 being formed from the materials described in [0019] is capable of being cut by scissors, thus, 52 and 54 can be detached from 50 by scissors).
In regards to claim 13, Trujillo discloses A bandage device (10; see [0017]; see figure 1) that provides a user with a specialized fingertip bandage (see figures 1-4), the bandage device (10) comprising:
a body component (50; see [0021]; see figure 1) comprising a rear face (30 of 50; see [0018]; see figure 1) coated in adhesives (see [0025]);
a wing component (52 and 54; see [0021]; see figure 1) comprising a rear face (30 of 52 and 54; see [0018]; see figure 1) coated in adhesives (see [0025]); and
an adhesive release sheet (removable sheet/shield material; see [0032]);
wherein the body component (50) is a cloth structure (see [0019] in reference to the materials contemplated for use and [0020] in reference to the material may be a mesh (i.e. a porous interwoven cloth)) configured in a traditional bandage shape (see figure 2 that 50 is configured in a traditional, rectangular bandage shape);
wherein the body component (50) has an absorbent pad (22; see [0018]; see figure 1) which covers a wound (18; see [0017]; see figure 2);
wherein the wing component (52 and 54) and body component (50) are attached to form a T-shaped structure (see figure 1);
wherein the wing component wraps (52 and 54) around a fingertip (12; see [0017]; see figure 2) to secure the body component (50) in place (see figure 4);
wherein the adhesives are used to secure the bandage device (10) onto a user’s skin (see [0025]); and
further wherein the body component (50) protects the fingertip wound (18) from infection or pain (50 forms a barrier which protects 18 from direct exposure to infectious materials, and prevents pain causing materials from entering the wound).
In regards to claim 14, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein material of both the body component (50) and the wing component (52 and 54) can be elastic to allow the bandage device (10) to be waterproof (see [0016] and [0019] in reference to the flexible and breathable materials being waterproof, and that the flexible and breathable materials may be formed from nylon which can be elastic).
In regards to claim 15, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the wound (18) comprises a scrape, cut, laceration, or other minor wound (see [0015])
In regards to claim 17, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses further comprising a plurality of indicia (see [0038]).
In regards to claim 19, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the wing component (52 and 54) can be removed from the body component (50) through cutting with scissors or ripping along a perforated edge (20 being formed from the materials described in [0019] is capable of being cut by scissors, thus, 52 and 54 can be detached from 50 by scissors).
In regards to claim 20, Trujillo discloses A method of protecting a fingertip wound (see [abstract] and figures 1-4), the method comprising the following steps:
providing a bandage device (10; see [0017]; see figure 1) comprising a body component (50; see [0021]; see figure 1) and wing component (52 and 54; see [0021]; see figure 1) that are a T-shaped structure (see figure 1) with adhesive (see [0025]) and an adhesive sheet (removable sheet/shield material; see [0032]);
removing the adhesive sheet (removable sheet/shield material) from the back face of the body and wing component (30 of 50, 52, and 54; see [0018]; see figure 1; see [0033] in reference to the removal of the shield material);
securing the device (10) onto the fingertip by wrapping the wing component (52 and 54) around the finger (see figure 4); and
sticking the bandage device (10) to the skin with the adhesive on the back face of the wing component and body component (adhesive on 30 of 50, 52, and 54; see [0034-0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trujillo in view of Ficchi (US 2015/0257939 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo does not disclose wherein the wing component could also be detached from the body component by tearing at a perforated edge which is situated between the wing component and the body component.
However, Ficchi teaches an analogous toe and finger bandage (1; see [0002] and [0020]; see figure 2) comprising an analogous body component (2; see [0020]; see figure 2) and wing component (3a and 4a; see [0020]; see figure 2); wherein the wing component (3a and 4a) could also be detached from the body component (2) by tearing at a perforated edge (5; see [0020]; see figure 2) which is situated between the wing component (3a and 4a) and the body component (2; see figure 2) for the purpose of including a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired (see [0020]).
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 bandage device as disclosed by Trujillo and to have included the perforations between the body component and wing component as taught by Ficchi in order to have provided an improved bandage device that would add the benefit of including a tear strip to allow a user to tear off a flexible arm if desired (see [0020]).
In regards to claim 8, Trujillo as now modified by Ficchi discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein adhesives (adhesive) on the back face of the body component and wing component (30 of 50, 52, and 54) are covered by an adhesive release sheet (removable sheet/shield material; see [0032]) which is removed in order to use the bandage device (10; see [0033]).
In regards to claim 9, Trujillo as now modified by Ficchi discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the body component (50) and wing component (52 and 54) could be various colors or designs (see [0021], [0023], and [0024] in reference to the bandage device being T-shaped, or lobed shaped, and that 50, 52, and 54 can be any shape, length, or width; thereby disclosing various designs of the body component 50, and wing component 52, and 54).
In regards to claim 10, Trujillo as now modified by Ficchi discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the body component (50) and wing component (52 and 54) form a T-shaped structure (see [0021]; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 11, Trujillo as now modified by Ficchi discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the bandage device (10) can be utilized with a toe (see [0001]).
In regards to claim 12, Trujillo as now modified by Ficchi discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses further comprising a plurality of indicia (see [0038]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trujillo in view of Takemura et al. (US 2006/0089585 A1) (hereinafter Takemura).
In regards to claim 16, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo further discloses wherein the adhesives are covered by the adhesive release sheet (removable sheet/shield material; see [0032]).
Trujillo does not disclose wherein the adhesives are made up of an acrylic polymer.
However, Takemura teaches an analogous bandage device (adhesive plaster; see [0017]; see figure 2) for use on a finger wound (see [0001]) comprising a body component (15; see [0033]; see figure 2) and wing component (14 and 16; see [0033]; see figure 2) and an analogous adhesive (11; see [0029]; see figure 9); wherein the adhesives (11) are made up of an acrylic polymer (see [0029]) for the purpose of providing an excellent adhesion which is favorable in cost (see [0029]).
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 adhesives as disclosed by Trujillo and to have formed the adhesives from acrylic polymer adhesive as taught by Takemura in order to have provided an improved adhesive that would add the benefit of providing an adhesive which exhibits excellent adhesion which is favorable in cost (see [0029]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trujillo in view of Grubb (US 3,490,448 A).
In regards to claim 18, Trujillo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trujillo does not disclose wherein the absorbent pad is dipped in antiseptic to further prevent infection.
However, Grubb teaches an analogous bandage (adhesive pressure bandage; see [col 2 ln 34-35]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous absorbent pad (10; see [col 2 ln 35-40]; see figure 1); wherein the absorbent pad (10) is dipped in antiseptic (see [col 4 ln 30-35]) to further prevent infection for the purpose of including an antiseptic medicament in the absorbent pad (See [col 4 ln 30-35]).
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 absorbent pad as disclosed by Trujillo and to have dipped the absorbent pad in antiseptic as taught by Grubb in order to have provided an improved absorbent pad that would add the benefit of including an antiseptic medicament in the absorbent pad (See [col 4 ln 30-35]) thereby increasing the sterility of the bandage device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Samlaska (US 2013/0138055 A1), Shi et al. (CN 201959093 U), Li (CN 104546292 A), Mianzhu Yaolong Medical Instruments Co Ltd. (CN 209392244 U), and Byung-Seop (KR 200356905 Y1) all of which disclose similar bandage devices that are intended to be used on a fingertip or toe to cover a wound on the fingertip or toe and which disclose the inventions are recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
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 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786