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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 3-4 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 3 recites “the both-end transferers” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the both-end transferers” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102477461 (hereinafter KR’461) in view of Ampulski (US 6149849).
Regarding claim 1, KR’461 teaches a suture processing method using ultrasonic waves (fig. 1, machine translation, para. [0052]), the suture processing method comprising:
step 1 of receiving a suture from a supply roll (fig. 1, supply unit 100) and gripping the suture by a distal-end transferer (fig. 1, roller 300);
step 2 of transferring the suture into an intagliated pattern of a mold (fig. 2, roller 210) positioned between the supply roll and the distal end-transferer;
step 3 of removing tension of the suture between the supply roll and the distal-end transferer (machine translation, para. [0068], [0069], buffer unit controls the moving speed and tension of the yarn T1 supplied to the roller rolling unit 200, then the buffer unit performs removing tension of the suture);
step 4 of forming cogs on the suture (fig. 2) by coupling an ultrasonic wave generator to the mold and transmitting ultrasonic waves to the suture (machine translation, para. [0052]);
step 5 of separating the ultrasonic wave generator (fig. 2);
step 6 of adding tension to the suture between the supply roll and the distal-end transferer (machine translation, para. [0068], [0069], buffer unit controls the moving speed and tension of the yarn T1 supplied to the roller rolling unit 200, then the buffer unit performs adding tension to the suture);
step 7 of separating the suture from the mold (fig. 2); and
step 8 of transferring the suture having the cogs formed thereon to a second blade portion to cut a tip of the suture (machine translation, para. [0070], the cutting unit cuts the yarn T2 discharged from the roller rolling unit 200 to a used length).
KR’461 does not teach removing a part of the suture that protrudes to an upper surface of the mold by using a first blade portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 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 KR’461 with a scraping device as taught by Ampulski for the benefit of cleaning molding surface in operation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified method KR’461-Ampulski teaches the suture is moved toward the mold by both-end transferers (KR’461, fig. 1, rollers 410, 420) disposed at both sides of the mold to insert the suture into the intagliated pattern of the mold (KR’461, fig. 1), and here, the tension is controlled so as not to increase (KR’461, machine translation, para. [0068], [0069], buffer unit controls the moving speed and tension of the yarn T1 supplied to the roller rolling unit 200, then it is obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to realize that the buffer unit can control the tension so as not to increase).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method KR’461-Ampulski does not teach the suture is moved upward by the both-end transferers disposed at both sides of the mold.
However, Ampulski teaches the material is moved upward by the both-end transferers disposed at both sides of the mold (fig. 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-Ampulski with the teaching that the suture is moved upward by the both-end transferers disposed at both sides of the mold as suggested by Ampulski for the benefit of maintaining the yarn’s tension in operation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102477461 and Ampulski (US 6149849), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiura (US 2014/0072768).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method KR’461-Ampulski does not teach the suture is moved upward by the both-end transferers disposed at both sides of the mold, and a separation roller moves between the suture and the upper surface of the mold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sugiura teaches the molded material is moved upward by the both-end transferers (fig. 1, rollers 17, 13) disposed at both sides of the mold (fig. 1, mold 11), and a separation roller (fig. 1, roller 15) moves between the molded material and the upper surface of the mold.
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 method KR’461-Ampulski with a transfer device as suggested by Sugiura for the benefit of transferring a fine transfer pattern (Sugiura, para. [0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102477461 and Ampulski (US 6149849), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR102398051 (hereinafter KR’051).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method KR’461-Ampulski does not teach a distal end of the suture having the cogs formed thereon that is transferred by the distal-end transferer is transferred to the second blade portion and gripped, the distal-end transferer moving toward the tip of the suture again grips the tip of the suture and transfers the tip of the suture to the second blade portion, and then the second blade portion cuts the tip.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KR’051 teaches a distal end of the suture having the cogs formed thereon that is transferred by the distal-end transferer (fig. 2, elements 70A, 70B on the lower right) is transferred to the second blade portion (fig. 2, blade 81) and gripped (fig. 2, by gripper 91)), the distal-end transferer moving toward the tip of the suture again grips the tip of the suture and transfers the tip of the suture to the second blade portion, and then the second blade portion cuts the tip (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 method KR’461-Ampulski with the clamping and cutting system as taught by 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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