DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102477461 (hereinafter KR’461) in view of KR102398051 (hereinafter KR’051), Ampulski (US 6149849) and Sugiura (US 2014/0072768).
Regarding claim 1, KR’461 teaches a suture processing machine (fig. 1) using ultrasonic waves, the suture processing machine comprising:
a supply roll (fig. 1, supply unit 100) around which a suture to be processed is wound;
a tension controller (machine translation, para. [0068], [0069], buffer unit controls the moving speed and tension of the yarn T1 supplied to the roller rolling unit 200, and can be placed in front of the roller rolling unit 200, for example, by jigging a plurality of rollers) configured to control tension of the suture between the distal-end transferer and the supply roll;
a mold (fig. 2, roller 210) having an intagliated pattern to form cogs on the suture;
both-end transferers (fig. 1, rollers 410, 420) installed at both sides of the mold;
an ultrasonic wave generator configured to come in contact with the suture in the mold and transmit ultrasonic waves thereto (machine translation, para. [0052]); and
a second blade portion configured to cut a tip of the suture transferred from the roller rolling unit (200) (machine translation, para. [0070], the cutting unit cuts the yarn T2 discharged from the roller rolling unit 200 to a used length).
KR’051 does not teach a distal-end transferer configured to grip and transfer a distal end of the suture supplied from the supply roll.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KR’051 teaches a distal-end transferer (fig. 2, elements 70A, 70B on the lower right); the blade portion (fig. 2, blade 81) configured to cut a tip of the suture transferred from the distal-end transferer; and the suture supported between the distal-end transferer and the supply roll is positioned higher than the mold (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine KR’461 with the clamping system of KR’051 for the benefit of fixing and releasing the yarn by a gripping operation and maintaining the tension in the yarn in operation (KR’051, machine translation, para. [0103], [0106]).
The modified structure KR’461-KR’051 does not teach a first blade portion configured to remove a part of the suture that protrudes to an upper surface of the mold.
However, in the same field of plastic shaping process, Ampulski teaches it is known in the art, the excess of resinous material from the molding surface is accomplished by scraping the excess material from the molding surface (col. 12, lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure KR’461-KR’051 with a scraping device as taught by Ampulski for the benefit of cleaning molding surface.
The modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski does not clearly teach the both-end transferers are configured to move downward to press the suture toward the mold to insert the suture into the intagliated pattern and to move upward to separate the suture from the intagliated pattern by tension; a separation roller configured to contact and support the suture from a lower side, wherein the separation roller is configured to move between the suture and an upper surface of the mold to assist in separation of the suture from the mold while the suture is being separated from the intagliated pattern by an upward movement of the both-end transferers.
However, KR’461 teaches the system comprising the yarn loading unit configured to adjust the position (height, direction, etc.) of the yarn T1 supplied to the roller rolling unit 200 and is composed of a plurality of rollers (para. [0067]); the buffer unit may also be disposed behind the roller rolling unit 200 to adjust the moving speed and tension of the thread T2 discharged from the roller rolling unit 200 (para. [0069]; and the buffer unit comprises a plurality of rollers (para. [0068]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Sugiura teaches the molded material is supported and positioned higher than the mold, and the both-end transferers (fig. 1, rollers 17, 13) are configured to move downward to press the molded material toward the mold and to move upward to separate the molded material by tension (figs. 6-10); a separation roller (fig. 1, roller 15) configured to contact and support the molded material from a lower side, wherein the separation roller is configured to move between the molded material and an upper surface of the mold to assist in separation of the molded material from the mold while the molded material is being separated from the mold by an upward movement of the both-end transferers (figs. 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski with a transfer device as suggested by Sugiura for the benefit of transferring a fine transfer pattern (Sugiura, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura does not teach the supply roll and the tension controller are integrally formed.
However, KR’051 teaches, the supply reel is rotated by a servo motor (43), so that the tension control unit and the servo motor are interlocked to release the yarn from the supply reel and transfer it (machine translation, para. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura with the teaching that the supply roll and the tension controller are integrally formed as taught by KR’051 for the benefit of controlling the release and the transferring the yarn from the supply reel to the molding unit.
Regarding claim 4, the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura does not teach the second blade portion further includes a grip portion configured to grip the suture transferred from the distal-end transferer.
However, KR’051 teaches the second blade portion (fig. 2, blade 81) further includes a grip portion (fig. 2, gripper 91) configured to grip the suture transferred from the distal-end transferer (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura with a grip portion as taught by KR’051 for the benefit of facilitating in discharging the cut suture.
Regarding claim 5, the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura does not teach a tray portion configured to collect the suture cut by the second blade portion.
However, KR’051 teaches a tray portion configured to collect the suture cut by the second blade portion (fig. 13, portion 111A).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura with a tray portion as taught by KR’051 for the benefit of facilitating in discharging the cut suture.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102477461, KR102398051, Ampulski (US 6149849) and Sugiura (US 2014/0072768), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shoji (US 2011/0037184).
Regarding claim 3, the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura does not teach a cooler configured to cool the mold.
However, in the same field of plastic shaping process, Shoji teaches a cooler configured to cool the mold (fig. 9, para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure KR’461-KR’051-Ampulski-Sugiura with a cooler as taught by Shoji for the benefit of improving the release of the material from the mold (para. [0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, dated 06/03/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 06/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 06/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. However, this argument is not commensurate with the rejected claims, as the limitations have not been previously presented. Thus, the amended limitations have been addressed as analyzed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights