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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 1/9/2025 and 8/5/2026 are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please amend “couple” to read “coupled”. 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites “collets”. Within the scope of claim 14, there are also holders in which the workpieces are loaded (see claim 12). It is unclear if the collets intended to narrow the holders as recited in claim 1 or of these are additional to the holders of claim 12.
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) 1-3, 5-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN10948569) in view of Chen (CN107309756A).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a method for grinding a workpiece comprising the steps of:
(i) loading a workpiece to a holder (see needle holders 91 and needles 9, Figures 2 and 3), the holder being rotationally coupled to a frame (see mounting plate 1, base plate 2), an actuator operatively coupled to the holder to drive rotation of the holder with respect to the frame, (wherein lines 210-211 disclose that the needle 9 includes the structure of needle holder 91 and injection needle 91, wherein lines 287-293 disclose the whole structure of needle 9, i.e. including needle holder 91, rotates; see also the adjusting mechanism 3 and the transmission mechanism 4)
(ii) moving and/or rotating the workpiece by the actuator to perform one or more ancillary operations on the workpiece (see at least the sleeving and inverting operation disclosed in lines 277-285, which is movement performed in order to match and align the workpiece); and
(iii) moving/and or rotating the workpiece by the actuator to grind the workpiece against a grinding surface (see lines 302-304; wherein the needles are rotated in order to align and then grind the needles to form a sharp edge; see also lines 147-152, lines 139-142, 147-159, 166-167, and 277-285).
However, while Tang describes the apparatus is automated (see lines 35-36), Tang does not explicitly teach an end effector.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Chen (CN 107309756A) teaches of an apparatus configured to grind a workpiece, wherein there is a robot (see at least first robot 13 or second robot 14) which has an end effector (see Figures 3-8) configured to hold a workpiece element (see lines 400-443).
Both Chen and Tang are within the field of grinding apparatuses which employ automated or semi-automated aspects. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen into the apparatus of Tang. While Tang describes the apparatus is an improvement upon manual grinding in terms of efficiency (see Tang: lines 37-39), one would be motivated to provide the structure of Chen such that processing uniformity and accuracy are enhanced while ensuring product quality, consistency, and efficiency (see Chen: lines 434-443).
Regarding claim 2, Tang in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Tang further teaches wherein the ancillary operations include any of a pre-grinding operation and a post-grinding operation (wherein the disclosed sleeving and inverting movements in lines 277-285 take place prior to grinding).
Regarding claim 3, Tang in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Tang further teaches wherein the pre-grinding operations include any of retrieving feedstock and cutting feedstock (see splicing disclosed in 139-142, as well as the needles being fitted in lines 157-159; see also loading disclosed in lines 166-167).
Regarding claim 5, Tang in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Tang further teaches wherein the workpiece is a trocar (wherein the needle is disclosed as an injection needle, see at least lines 209-211).
Regarding claim 6, Tang in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Tang further teaches wherein the actuator is a robot (please see at least the combination statement as applied above, wherein Tang in view of Chen teaches the robot end effector system of Chen as combined with the physical structure of Tang, i.e. wherein the actuator is a robot; see also either robot 13, 14 of Chen in Figures 3-8).
Regarding claim 7, Tang in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Tang further teaches including a step of attaching the robot to the end effector (please see at least the combination statement as applied above, wherein Tang in view of Chen teaches the robot end effector system of Chen as combined with the physical structure of Tang; see Chen lines 411-420 and 434-443).
Regarding claim 11, Tang in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Tang further teaches wherein the holder is couple to a holder gear, the actuator including a shaft having a shaft gear, the shaft gear being operatively coupled to the holder gear to drive rotation of the holder with respect to the frame (see at least the gears disclosed in lines 287-293; see also Figures 2, 3, and 5 regarding the respective shafts and gears for transmitting movement; see also lines 76-82).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 5575708) in view of Chen (CN107309756A).
Regarding claim 1, Chau discloses a method for grinding a workpiece (Col. 1, lines 52-55) comprising the steps of:
(i) loading a workpiece to a holder, the holder being rotationally coupled to a frame (see at least Col. 2, lines 20-25 disclosing a support frame and a fixture mounted on the support frame for holding at least one instrument; see also Figure 3; see also insert holders 38 for holding needles N), an actuator operatively coupled to the holder to drive rotation of the holder with respect to the frame, (see at least Col. 4, lines 34-41; see also Col. 7, lines 20-42)
(ii) moving and/or rotating the workpiece by the actuator to perform one or more ancillary operations on the workpiece (Col. 2, lines 28-51; Col. 3, lines 4-17; Col. 6, lines 51-63); and
(iii) moving/and or rotating the workpiece by the actuator to grind the workpiece against a grinding surface (Col. 2, lines 52-57; see also Col. 2, line 60-Col. 3, line 3; Col. 3, lines 15-17).
While Chau describes a computer and controller configuration in at least Figure 12, Chau does not explicitly teach of an end effector for mounting.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Chen (CN 107309756A) teaches of an apparatus configured to grind a workpiece, wherein there is a robot (see at least first robot 13 or second robot 14) which has an end effector (see Figures 3-8) configured to hold a workpiece element (see lines 400-443).
Both Chen and Chau are within the field of grinding apparatuses which employ automated or semi-automated aspects. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen into the apparatus of Chau. Chau intimates and suggests alternatives, including alternatives to the support frame structure (12) in at least Col. 4, lines 30-33. One would be motivated to provide the structure of Chen such that processing uniformity and accuracy are enhanced while ensuring product quality, consistency, and efficiency (see Chen: lines 434-443).
Regarding claim 2, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the ancillary operations include any of a pre-grinding operation and a post-grinding operation (Col. 2, lines 37-66; Col. 4, lines 34-50; Col. 5, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 3, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the pre-grinding operations include any of retrieving feedstock and cutting feedstock (Col. 2, lines 37-66; Col. 4, lines 34-50; Col. 5, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 5, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the workpiece is a trocar (Chau: see surgical needles disclosed in Col. 1, lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 6, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the actuator is a robot (please see at least the combination statement as applied above, wherein Chau in view of Chen teaches the robot end effector system of Chen as combined with the physical structure of Chau, i.e. wherein the actuator is a robot; see also either robot 13, 14 of Chen in Figures 3-8).
Regarding claim 7, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches including a step of attaching the robot to the end effector (please see at least the combination statement as applied above, wherein Chau in view of Chen teaches the robot end effector system of Chen as combined with the physical structure of Tang; see Chen lines 411-420 and 434-443).
Regarding claim 12, Chau discloses a method for grinding comprising the steps of:
(i) loading a plurality of workpieces to respective holders, each holder being rotationally coupled to a frame, an actuator operatively coupled to the holders to drive simultaneous rotation of the holders with respect to the frame (see at least Col. 2, lines 20-25 disclosing a support frame and a fixture mounted on the support frame for holding at least one instrument; see also Figure 3; see also insert holders 38 for holding needles N; see at least Col. 4, lines 34-41; see also Col. 7, lines 20-42);
(ii) manipulating the plurality of workpieces by the actuator to perform one or more ancillary operations simultaneously on the workpieces (Col. 2, lines 28-51; Col. 3, lines 4-17; Col. 6, lines 51-63); and
(iii) grinding the plurality of workpieces against a grinding surface while simultaneously rotating the workpieces using the actuator (see at least Figures 6A and 6B; wherein the needles are rotated during a grinding operation to adjust the surfaces which are to be ground; see Col. 7, lines 20-42; see also Col. 2, lines 52-57; see also Col. 2, line 60-Col. 3, line 3; Col. 3, lines 15-17).
While Chau describes a computer and controller configuration in at least Figure 12, Chau does not explicitly teach of an end effector for mounting.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Chen (CN 107309756A) teaches of an apparatus configured to grind a workpiece, wherein there is a robot (see at least first robot 13 or second robot 14) which has an end effector (see Figures 3-8) configured to hold a workpiece element (see lines 400-443).
Both Chen and Chau are within the field of grinding apparatuses which employ automated or semi-automated aspects. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen into the apparatus of Chau. Chau intimates and suggests alternatives, including alternatives to the support frame structure (12) in at least Col. 4, lines 30-33. One would be motivated to provide the structure of Chen such that processing uniformity and accuracy are enhanced while ensuring product quality, consistency, and efficiency (see Chen: lines 434-443).
Regarding claim 15, Chau discloses a method for grinding a trocar (please see the Abstract regarding the grinding of surgical instruments including needles N) comprising the steps of:
(i) rotating a trocar within a holder, the holder being coupled to a gear system to enable rotation (see at least Col. 2, lines 20-25 disclosing a support frame and a fixture mounted on the support frame for holding at least one instrument; see also Figure 3; see also insert holders 38 for holding needles N; see also Col. 4, lines 34-41; see also Col. 7, lines 20-42);
(ii) grinding the trocar against a grinding surface to form a beveled tip (see Figures 3, 4, 6A, and 6B; see also Col. 2, lines 52-57; see also Col. 2, line 60-Col. 3, line 3; Col. 3, lines 15-17); and
(iii) adjusting a position of the holder to create additional beveled surfaces at predefined angles (see Figures 6A and 6B; see also Col. 7, line 20-Col. 8, line 8; see also Col. 1, lines 14-20).
While Chau describes a computer and controller configuration in at least Figure 12, Chau does not explicitly teach of an end effector for mounting.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Chen (CN 107309756A) teaches of an apparatus configured to grind a workpiece, wherein there is a robot (see at least first robot 13 or second robot 14) which has an end effector (see Figures 3-8) configured to hold a workpiece element (see lines 400-443).
Both Chen and Chau are within the field of grinding apparatuses which employ automated or semi-automated aspects. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen into the apparatus of Chau. Chau intimates and suggests alternatives, including alternatives to the support frame structure (12) in at least Col. 4, lines 30-33. One would be motivated to provide the structure of Chen such that processing uniformity and accuracy are enhanced while ensuring product quality, consistency, and efficiency (see Chen: lines 434-443).
Regarding claim 16, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches comprising the step of applying coolant to the grinding surface and the trocar during grinding to reduce thermal damage and debris accumulation (Chau: see coolant described in Col. 2, lines 7-16; Col. 5, lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 17, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the predefined angles for the additional beveled surfaces are selected based on a desired trocar tip geometry (Chau: see Figures 6A and 6B, as well as Col. 7, line 20-Col. 8, line 8).
Regarding claim 18, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches further comprising a step of dynamically adjusting the rotation speed of the trocar to based on material properties of the trocar (Chau: wherein the rotation of the needles N takes place in order to achieve the desired geometries, and wherein Col. 7, line 20-Col. 8, line 9 teach that the controller is configured to control the servo motors and drives, including the mechanism by which the needles rotate, to accelerate or decelerate to impart correct motions in a feedback manner, wherein the feedback and corrections are based on the desired geometries of the needles, which is dependent upon the interaction between the needle material and the grinding material, i.e. the adjustment is indirectly based on grinding progress correlating with the material properties of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 19, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the holder includes a support structure configured to minimize deflection of the trocar during grinding (Chau: see at least base 34, cover 36, Figure 3; wherein the physical structure of the holding fixture 14 is configured to support and hold the holders 38 during grinding, and wherein the base and cover thereby limit the movement of the needles in along the axial and radial directions; wherein the prior art teaches the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation, as the holding fixture is provided to support and hold during grinding, which also counteracts forces).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 5575708) in view of Chen (CN107309756A), and in further view of Dery (US 3539314).
Regarding claim 4, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach wherein the post-grinding operations include any of deburring, grit blasting, inspection and electropolishing of the workpiece.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Dery teaches of a post-grinding operation including inspection (see Col. 6, line 56-Col. 7, line 15; see also Col. 2, lines 26-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Dery into the invention of modified Chau such that there is an inspection step after polishing. One would be motivated to do so in order to ensure the needles are satisfactory at each step and adjusting parameters if necessary (see Col. 7, lines 1-15), i.e. quality control.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 5575708) in view of Chen (CN107309756A), and in further view of Zhou (CN 108340247A).
Regarding claim 8, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach wherein instructions to perform steps (i) to (iii) are communicated via a machine interface (see at least the computer shown in Figure 12).
However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach the computer interface is configured to have human input, i.e. a human-machine interface.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Zhou teaches of a human-machine interface (see Figures 8-11; see also lines 205-206; 113-124).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ability of an operator to provide input within a human-machine interface, as taught by Zhou, into the invention of modified Chau. One would be motivated to do so in order to permit a user to adjust or alter the grinding programs as desired, or if a correction is needed (see Zhou: lines 113-129).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 5575708) in view of Chen (107309756A), and in further view of Yan (CN 106041735A).
Regarding claim 9, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach wherein the holder has a substantially circular opening defining a variable diameter.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Yan teaches wherein the holder has a substantially circular opening defining a variable diameter (see lines 35-48, 60-61, 71-75, 90-98, 135-149; see collets 14 which are configured to surround the diameter of the needle; see needle shown in Figure 4 as well as Figures 2 and 3 showing the shape of the collets 14; see also lines 161-172 and 189-202).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the needle holding components as taught by Yan into the invention of modified Chau. Both Yan and Chau are directed towards apparatuses configured to refine and alter the surface of a needle; one would be motivated to do so because the clamping collets of Yan permit a convenient installation of needles therein while ensuring a firm clamping, high precision, and improves the overall grinding operation efficiency (see lines 199-202 and 165-172 of Yan; see also lines 30-33 and 90-98).
Regarding claim 10, Chau in view of Chen and Yan teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Chau further teaches wherein the step of loading the workpiece to the holder includes varying the variable diameter to receive and secure the workpiece (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, as well as Yan: lines 90-98 teach of shrinking the elastic collets; see also lines 165-172 regarding the contraction of the elastic collect in order to clamp a needle; see also lines 194-197 regarding the release of the needle from the collet).
Regarding claim 13, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified Chen further teaches of a motor configured to provide rotation; see Col. 7, lines 1-42 and 49-57. However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach wherein the actuator includes a shaft having a shaft gear operatively coupled to a plurality of holder gears, and wherein simultaneous rotation of the workpieces is achieved by driving the shaft gear with a motor.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Yan teaches wherein the actuator includes a shaft having a shaft gear operatively coupled to a plurality of holder gears, and wherein simultaneous rotation of the workpieces is achieved by driving the shaft gear with a motor (see lines 42-48, 60-75, 90-98, 129-149, 156-172, 186-202).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the gear and needle holding components as taught by Yan into the invention of modified Chau. Both Yan and Chau are directed towards apparatuses configured to refine and alter the surface of a needle; one would be motivated to do so because the clamping collets of Yan permit a convenient installation of needles therein while ensuring a firm clamping, high precision, and improves the overall grinding operation efficiency (see lines 199-202 and 165-172 of Yan; see also lines 30-33 and 90-98).
Regarding claim 14, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified Chen further teaches wherein the ancillary operations include loading the workpieces to holders to releasably secure the workpieces (Col. 2, lines 37-66; Col. 4, lines 34-50; Col. 5, lines 30-41).
However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach the workpiece holders are in the form of collects, and the collets being adjusted to accommodate varying workpiece dimensions.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Yan teaches workpiece holders are in the form of collects, and the collets being adjusted to accommodate varying workpiece dimensions (see lines 35-48, 60-61, 71-75, 90-98, 135-149; see collets 14 which are configured to surround the diameter of the needle; see needle shown in Figure 4 as well as Figures 2 and 3 showing the shape of the collets 14; see also lines 161-172 and 189-202).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the needle holding components as taught by Yan into the invention of modified Chau. Both Yan and Chau are directed towards apparatuses configured to refine and alter the surface of a needle; one would be motivated to do so because the clamping collets of Yan permit a convenient installation of needles therein while ensuring a firm clamping, high precision, and improves the overall grinding operation efficiency (see lines 199-202 and 165-172 of Yan; see also lines 30-33 and 90-98).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 5575708) in view of Chen (CN 107309756A), and in further view of Smith (US 5477604)
Regarding claim 20, Chau in view of Chen teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Chau does not explicitly teach wherein the grinding surface is an electrochemical grinding surface.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Smith teaches of a method for producing surgical needles which pass through grinding stations, including wherein the grinding surface is an electrochemical grinding surface (wherein the electrochemical bath acts as a grinding surface to remove debris and unwanted elements from the needle blanks, see at least Col. 8, lines 30-42; Col. 12, lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the electrochemical teachings of Smith into the invention of modified Chau. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the surface finish of the needle blanks during production by removing any unwanted residual material present on the needle blanks (Smith: Col. 12, lines 15-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong (US 6015338), please see Abstract.
Ferguson (US 2010/0257711), please see Abstract and Figures 1A and 3A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights