DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 17 April 2026, regarding application number 17/448,688.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13-19 and 21-25 remain pending in the application, while claims 2, 5-6, 12 and 20 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 7 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 20 October 2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 7-8 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-16, filed 17 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has made the following arguments:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the above rejections set forth by the Office. Applicant submits the cited combination of Hirata and Nishioka fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention …
However, Applicant submits the combination of Hirata and Nishioka is not obvious, as both references protect solutions for different technical problems, and the alleged combination would render both teachings inoperable …
A person skilled in the art seeking to solve a problem in Hirata's system would not be motivated to draw upon the teachings of Nishioka, as their technical solutions are fundamentally contradictory, as explained in more detail below: …
In summary, Hirata teaches away from the teachings of Nishioka. A person skilled in the art looking to improve Hirata's device would search for solutions that further enhance flexible handling, rather than a solution based on rigid tension and precise path calculation that would destroy Hirata's fundamental concept. Therefore, for at least the reasons above, Applicant respectfully requests the rejections of claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that "the combination of Hirata and Nishioka is not obvious, as both references protect solutions for different technical problems, and the alleged combination would render both teachings inoperable.", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As discussed in the prior office action, Hirata explicitly teaches each and every claim limitation in at least claim 1, except for “position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection.”. Nishioka; however, provides explicit teaching and motivation for “position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection.”. That is, Nishioka describes a common problem of the length of a cable being longer than an intended design. The excess length causes slack in the cable which can interfere with and get caught on surrounding objects. Nishioka then provides a solution to this problem by positioning the cable in a cable passage with a gripper after establishing a plug-in connection. See at least [0017 “As shown in FIG. 9, the cable laying device 10 also includes a second hand 32, a second drive unit 34, and a second position sensor 36 as components for pushing the excess length 64 of the cable 60 into the groove 54, as described below.”],
[0021],
[0023 “Furthermore, there is a problem that slack occurs in the cable 60 on the moving side of the hand 100, and this slack interferes with surrounding objects and causes them to get caught. Furthermore, at the end of the manual pulling operation, the excess length 64 of the cable 60 is forced into the narrow space on the end side of the groove 54, making it difficult to force the excess length 64 into the groove 54 .”]-[0025],
[0027 “Furthermore, if the actual length of the cable 60 is longer than the design value, the cable 60 may become loose, which may cause interference with surrounding objects, or the cable 60
may not be able to be pushed into the groove 54 because the cable 60's bending tendency cannot be completely corrected.”]-[0028] and
[0067 “Furthermore, even if the actual length of the cable 60 is longer than the design value, the occurrence of slack in the cable 60 can be suppressed. This eliminates problems such as the cable 60 interfering with surrounding objects due to slack or the cable 60 not being able to completely straighten out its bend, and allows the cable 60 to be properly pushed into the groove 54.”].
Hirata similarly describes handling a cable with slack and attempting to reduce the slack with a gripper. See at least Figures 10-11;
[0073 “Moreover, since the pair of harnesses 112 are flexible, the harnesses 112 of the connector 110 may be curved or bent. Also in this case, when lifting the connector 110, in order to hold the tip-end part A2 of the harnesses 112 held by the holding unit 42, the control device 14 causes the holding unit 42 to position at the location where the gap formed between the pair of holding bodies 43 which separate from each others is located above the tip-end part A2 of the pair of harnesses 112, and then causes the holding unit 42 to be lowered from this position … Then, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the pair of holding bodies 43 are moved toward the tip-end part A2 of the harnesses 112 being held where the pair of holding bodies 43 hold the connector 110 when lifting. Therefore, the tip-end part A2 of the pair of harnesses 112 can be held appropriately.”] and
[0077 “Note that the work described above performed by the robot 1 is an illustration, and the present disclosure is not limited to the illustrated work. Alternatively, the robot 1 may be used, for example, for a work in which sausages connected in a row are conveyed.”]-[0078 “…the holding unit 42 can be moved toward the tip-end part A2 (third portion of the workpiece) of the pair of harnesses 112. Therefore, the tip-end parts of the pair of harnesses 112 can be held appropriately, and the connector 110 can be conveyed in the balanced manner. Moreover, since the connector 110 is held at two locations of the first holding part 18 and the second holding part 19, the connector 110 is prevented from falling during the conveyance.”]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hirata to further position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection, as taught by Nishioka, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place, thus suppressing slack in the cable and preventing the cable from interfering with surrounding objects.
Additionally, for the sake of compact prosecution, Applicant's argument with respect to the features of a Nishioka being bodily incorporated into the structure of the Hirata are not persuasive regardless of the combined teachings of the references disclosing each and every element of claim 1. Applicant made the following arguments:
“Hirata wants to manage flexibility of a free-ending cable for avoiding forces applied to the connector by allowing "play." Nishioka wants to eliminate flexibility by applying a constant "tension" to a cable fixed at both of its ends. Adding Nishioka's tension-based laying system to Hirata's "play"-based handling system would undermine the core principle of Hirata and would be counterproductive. In fact, it would make Hirata's teaching inoperable, because it would create forces on the plug held by the gripper, while Hirata sets out to avoid such forces. A person skilled in the art would recognize that introducing tension (according to Nishioka) would create precisely the tensions and stresses that Hirata seeks to avoid by introducing "play."
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the same reasons discussed above, because Hirata additionally teaches eliminating flexibility in order to convey the cable in a balanced manner. See at least Figures 10-11;
[0073 “Moreover, since the pair of harnesses 112 are flexible, the harnesses 112 of the connector 110 may be curved or bent. Also in this case, when lifting the connector 110, in order to hold the tip-end part A2 of the harnesses 112 held by the holding unit 42, the control device 14 causes the holding unit 42 to position at the location where the gap formed between the pair of holding bodies 43 which separate from each others is located above the tip-end part A2 of the pair of harnesses 112, and then causes the holding unit 42 to be lowered from this position … Then, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the pair of holding bodies 43 are moved toward the tip-end part A2 of the harnesses 112 being held where the pair of holding bodies 43 hold the connector 110 when lifting. Therefore, the tip-end part A2 of the pair of harnesses 112 can be held appropriately.”] and
[0078 “…the holding unit 42 can be moved toward the tip-end part A2 (third portion of the workpiece) of the pair of harnesses 112. Therefore, the tip-end parts of the pair of harnesses 112 can be held appropriately, and the connector 110 can be conveyed in the balanced manner. Moreover, since the connector 110 is held at two locations of the first holding part 18 and the second holding part 19, the connector 110 is prevented from falling during the conveyance.”].
Additionally, Hirata never mentions avoiding forces on the plug.
“Hirata's method is designed for a connector with a free-hanging cable harness. Nishioka's method for calculating an ellipse requires two known, fixed endpoints (focal points) between which the cable is laid (see Nishioka, paragraph [0043]). Hirata's scenario (a held connector and a manipulated, flexible cable) does not fit the prerequisites of Nishioka's mathematical approach.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 requires “position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection.”, while all of the handling processes performed by Hirata are performed before and/or during establishing the plug-in connection. See for example, Figures 4-7 and 9-11 which occur before establishing the plug-in connection and Figure 8 and which occurs during the plug-in connection. Claim 1 does not require the positioning of the cable in the cable passage until after establishing the plug-in connection (i.e. Figure 8 of Hirata). Conversely, the process taught by Nishioka of positioning of the cable in the cable passage occurs entirely after establishing a plug-in connection. Accordingly, a device including the combination of Hirata and Nishioka could first establish the plug-in connection, as taught by Hirata, then secure the free end of the cable harnesses of Hirata with a second plug or any fixed endpoint and finally position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection, as taught by Nishioka, without rendering the teachings inoperable.
“As to claim 15, Applicant submits the same arguments as discussed above with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 15. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the rejections of claim 15 and all claims depending therefrom be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
“Turning now to dependent claim 9 and the claims depending therefrom, these claims add that "the second gripper has a pressing element" to press the cable into a mount. The Office refers to the second hand 32 of Nishioka for this feature. However, the second hand 32 of Nishioka is completely separate from the first hand 12 used for gripping the cable. Therefore, Nishioka does not teach that the second gripper has a pressing element, as required by claim 9. Applicant further notes that the teaching of Nishioka in fact relies on the second hand 32 to be completely separate from the first hand 12 used for gripping the cable, and amending it as required by claim 9 would render Nishioka inoperable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely requires that the second gripper “has” a pressing element and doesn’t provide details of what “has” means, such as the pressing element being directly connected to the two gripping elements as implied by Applicant’s arguments. Additionally, Nishioka never states that the second hand 32 is completely separate from the first hand 12. Accordingly, Nishioka teaches claim 9, see full details below.
“The Office has rejected additionally rejected claims 16 and 17 as obvious over Hirata and Nishioka in combination with Sverdlov …
A person skilled in the art, faced with the task of automating the cabling of battery modules according to Sverdlov, would look for solutions for handling flat, semi-rigid components (Flex PCBs). They would not be motivated to consider Hirata or Nishioka, as these obviously offer solutions for a different problem, namely, the handling of round, slack cable harnesses. In summary, the Office's proposed combination is the result of hindsight, where elements from different sources are assembled to reconstruct the claimed invention. The combination would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art, as it would not lead to functioning device and thus no reasonable solution would emerge.”
With respect to Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Hirata and Nishioka, Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hirata, in view of Nishioka teach each and every limitation of at least independent claim 1, as discussed above. As for Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hirata “creating a massive safety issue and a risk for short circuits”, the system may not necessarily be energized and therefore is not necessarily creating a safety risk. Regardless of a safety risk, Sverdlov provides explicit motivation of using a robot to enhance safety in [4200 "The assembly of these components by robots enhances safety, so that engineers have reduced exposure to the high voltage of the HVBMs."].
With respect to Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Hirata, Nishioka and Sverdlov, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Hirata, in view of Nishioka teach each and every limitation of at least independent claim 1, as discussed above and Sverdlov teaches the features of at least claims 16-17. Applicant provided arguments against the structure of the PCB cable of Sverdlov being different than the cables of Hirata and Nishioka. However, the claims do not currently require a specific structure or type of cable. Instead, claims 16-17 merely require cabling battery modules during manufacture of a vehicle which Sverdlov teaches. Sverdlov teaches using robots to install cabling battery modules during manufacture of a vehicle to enhance safety in [4200 "The assembly of these components by robots enhances safety, so that engineers have reduced exposure to the high voltage of the HVBMs."].
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
“Claim 21 adds the feature of an alignment element that comes into contact with the plug connection to align the plug ...
A person skilled in the art would avoid introducing such unpredictable mechanical influences into a system that depends on mathematical precision and constant tension. Therefore, for at least the reasons above, the combination is not obvious.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 because Nishioka was only relied on for the teaching of positioning the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage, thus suppressing slack in the cable and preventing the cable from interfering with surrounding objects. Additionally, the process taught by Lee occurs before/during establishing the plug-in connection while the process taught by Nishioka occurs after said plug-in connection, therefore the combination of the devices taught by Nishioka and Lee is also adequate.
“Claim 22 adds the feature that the pressing element is a rotatably mounted roller. The Office cites Ichinose for this feature …
A person skilled in the art would recognize that the introduction of such an uncontrollable variable undermines the core principle of Nishioka and would therefore refrain from this combination.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ichinose introduces the roller pressing element in order to press down the wire while a bonding apparatus bonds the wire, therefore securing the wire in place. See [0013 “According to the ultrasonic vibration bonding apparatus in the present invention, the first and second press mechanisms executes the press processing at the time of the ultrasonic vibration processing by the bonding tool, a lift of the lead wire, that is deflection of the lead wire in the ultrasonic vibration processing, can be suppressed. However, gaps occur between the bonding tool and the first and second press rollers, so that there remains a possibility that deflection occurs in a lead wire gap formation regions under the gaps in the lead wire and the lift of the lead wire thereby occurs.”]-[0014 “In the ultrasonic vibration bonding apparatus according to the invention of the present application, the first and second press mechanisms can press the lead wire gap portion by at least one of the first and second press rollers by performing a movement processing of moving on the lead wire while pressing the lead wire, thus the lift of the lead wire can be reliably resolved and the lead wire can be accurately bonded onto the substrate.”].
“Claim 23 adds the feature that the second gripper has two rollers as gripping elements …
As such, a person skilled in the art would immediately recognize that this combination cannot work and would therefore not be motivated to implement it.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the second gripper of Nishioka could have additional rollers as gripping elements and does not necessarily have to substitute the second gripper structure with the rollers of Hariki. Additionally, the process taught by Hariki occurs before/during establishing the plug-in connection while the process taught by Nishioka occurs after said plug-in connection, therefore the combination of the devices taught by Nishioka and Hariki is also adequate.
“Claims 24 and 25 add a third gripper that grips and connects a second plug at the other end of the cable …
A person skilled in the art would recognize this and therefore not attempt to build such an inoperable and contradictory device.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 1 requires “position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection.” and claims 24-25 do not require any additional details of positioning the cable in the cable passage. All of the handling processes performed by Hirata and Mukou are performed before and/or during establishing the plug-in connection, while the process taught by Nishioka of positioning of the cable in the cable passage occurs entirely after establishing a plug-in connection. Accordingly, a device including the combination of Hirata, Mukou and Nishioka could first establish the plug-in connection of the first plug, as taught by Hirata and/or Mukou, then establish a plug-in connection with a second plug, as taught by Mukou, and finally position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection, as taught by Nishioka, without rendering the teachings inoperable.
For at least the reasons discussed above, discussed in the prior office action and discussed below, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 17, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the following:
“Turning now to claim 14, the Office considers claim 14 obvious over Nishioka (allegedly showing a gripper with a pressing element) in combination with Ichinose (pressing element as a roller) …
Therefore, claim 14 is not made obvious by the cited prior art.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 9 and 22. The claim merely requires that the gripper “has…” a pressing element and doesn’t provide details of what “has” means, such as the pressing element being directly connected to the two gripping elements as implied by Applicant’s arguments. Additionally, Nishioka never states that the second hand 32 is completely separate from the first hand 12. Ichinose introduces the roller pressing element in order to press down the wire while a bonding apparatus bonds the wire, therefore securing the wire in place. See [0013 “According to the ultrasonic vibration bonding apparatus in the present invention, the first and second press mechanisms executes the press processing at the time of the ultrasonic vibration processing by the bonding tool, a lift of the lead wire, that is deflection of the lead wire in the ultrasonic vibration processing, can be suppressed. However, gaps occur between the bonding tool and the first and second press rollers, so that there remains a possibility that deflection occurs in a lead wire gap formation regions under the gaps in the lead wire and the lift of the lead wire thereby occurs.”]-[0014 “In the ultrasonic vibration bonding apparatus according to the invention of the present application, the first and second press mechanisms can press the lead wire gap portion by at least one of the first and second press rollers by performing a movement processing of moving on the lead wire while pressing the lead wire, thus the lift of the lead wire can be reliably resolved and the lead wire can be accurately bonded onto the substrate.”]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pressing element of the gripper of Nishioka to be a roller rotationally supported on the gripper and to be guided along the cable in rolling contact with the cable to press the cable into the mount, as taught by Ichinose, in order to press the cable while moving along the cable to reduce unintentional displacement of the cable.
For at least the reasons discussed above, discussed in the prior office action and discussed below, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a. “control programmed to control…” in claims 1, 7, 9, 11 and 21.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the corresponding structure for the “control” in paragraph [0107] of the specification filed on 03 December 2021.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 13, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 20190160673 A1 and Hirata hereinafter), in view of Nishioka et al. (JP 2018088747 A and Nishioka hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1
Hirata teaches a device for an automated establishment of a plug-in connection of a plug arranged at a cable to a plug mating element and for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see all Figs., especially Figs. 1 and 8; [0006]), the device comprising:
a first gripper for gripping the plug (see Figs. 1 and 3, suction head 32; [0006], [0051] and [0068 "The control device 14 then causes the suction head 32 to suck and hold the connector body 111 of the connector 110 (Connector Body Holding Step: Step S1)."]);
a first handling unit (see Fig. 1, robotic arm 13A; [0039]) having a first base (see Fig. 1, second link 21b; [0043]), a first end member (see Figs. 1 and 3, first coupling link 31; [0049]-[0051]) and a plurality of first axes for positioning the first end member with respect to the first base (see Fig. 1, J3 and/or J4 and/or elevating part 22a and/or rotary part 22b; [0044]-[0046]), the first gripper being attached to the first end member (see Fig. 1); and
at least one second gripper for gripping the cable, wherein the second gripper is a mechanical gripper comprising two gripping elements moveable with respect to each other between which the cable is gripped (see Figs. 1 and 3, holding unit 42; [0006], [0055 "The holding unit 42 is a mechanism which holds harnesses 112 of a connector 110 with the play in a direction which intersects with the extending directions of the harnesses 112 (i.e., the first direction D1)."]-[0057] and [0070]),
a second handling unit (see Fig. 1, robotic arm 13B; [0039]) having a second base (see Fig. 1, second link 21b; [0043]), a second end member (see Figs. 1 and 3, second coupling link 41; [0053]-[0055]) and a plurality of second axes for positioning the second end member with respect to the second base (see Fig. 1, J3 and/or J4 and/or elevating part 22a and/or rotary part 22b; [0044]-[0046]), the second gripper being arranged at the second end member (see Fig. 1), and
a control programmed to control the first gripper and the first handling unit to grip the plug arranged on the cable and to establish the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element (see Figs. 5-11, all, especially Fig. 8; [0006], [0065], [0068 "The control device 14 then causes the suction head 32 to suck and hold the connector body 111 of the connector 110 (Connector Body Holding Step: Step S1)."] and [0075 "Next, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in the workspace P2, the connector body 111 of the connector 110 is positioned above the socket 102 of the substrate 101. Then, the connector 110 is moved downwardly, and the connector body 111 is fitted into the socket 102 to engage the socket 102 with the connector body 111."]) and further programmed to control the second gripper and the second handling unit to grip the cable and to position the cable (see Figs. 5-11, all, especially Figs. 7-8 and 11; [0006], [0057], [0070 "Thus, the intermediate part A1 of the harnesses 112 of the connector 110 is held by the through-hole 49 of the holding unit 42 with the play (Harness Holding Step: Step S2)."]-[0073 “Moreover, since the pair of harnesses 112 are flexible, the harnesses 112 of the connector 110 may be curved or bent. Also in this case, when lifting the connector 110, in order to hold the tip-end part A2 of the harnesses 112 held by the holding unit 42, the control device 14 causes the holding unit 42 to position at the location where the gap formed between the pair of holding bodies 43 which separate from each others is located above the tip-end part A2 of the pair of harnesses 112, and then causes the holding unit 42 to be lowered from this position … Then, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the pair of holding bodies 43 are moved toward the tip-end part A2 of the harnesses 112 being held where the pair of holding bodies 43 hold the connector 110 when lifting. Therefore, the tip-end part A2 of the pair of harnesses 112 can be held appropriately.”] and [0078 “…the holding unit 42 can be moved toward the tip-end part A2 (third portion of the workpiece) of the pair of harnesses 112. Therefore, the tip-end parts of the pair of harnesses 112 can be held appropriately, and the connector 110 can be conveyed in the balanced manner. Moreover, since the connector 110 is held at two locations of the first holding part 18 and the second holding part 19, the connector 110 is prevented from falling during the conveyance.”]).
Hirata is silent regarding position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection.
Nishioka teaches a device for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see all Figs., especially 9-10 cable 60 and groove 54; [0006]), the device comprising:
at least one second gripper for gripping the cable, wherein the second gripper is a mechanical gripper comprising two gripping elements moveable with respect to each other between which the cable is gripped (see first hand 12 with claw portions 22 and pressing portion 38 in most Figs., especially Figs. 3 and 9-10; [0006], [0012]-[0015] and [0053], especially [0013 "The first hand 12 hooks and holds a part of the cable 60, and has a pair of claws 22 and an opening/closing drive unit 24 ."]),and
a control programmed further programmed to control the second gripper and the second handling unit to grip the cable and to position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection (see Figs. 8-10, all; [0010 "...the groove 54 is an example of a "cable laying portion."], [0052 "When the first hand 12 moves beyond the other connector 52 , the cable 60 is laid in the groove 54 and an excess portion 64 of the cable 60 is produced on the side beyond the other connector 52. The portion of the cable 60 that is laid in the groove 54 will hereinafter be referred to as the laid portion 66 .."]-[0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."], [0062] and [0067 “Furthermore, even if the actual length of the cable 60 is longer than the design value, the occurrence of slack in the cable 60 can be suppressed. This eliminates problems such as the cable 60 interfering with surrounding objects due to slack or the cable 60 not being able to completely straighten out its bend, and allows the cable 60 to be properly pushed into the groove 54.”]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hirata to further position the cable in the cable passage during and/or after establishing the plug-in connection, as taught by Nishioka, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place, thus suppressing slack in the cable and preventing the cable from interfering with surrounding objects.
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata further teaches wherein the first gripper and the second gripper are movable together via at least one of a plurality of movement axes of a third handling unit (see Fig. 1, carriage 12 and/or base shaft 16; [0039]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 3 (as discussed above in claim 3),
Hirata further teaches wherein the base of the first handling unit and the base of the second handling unit are arranged at a common support element that is movable via the third handling unit (see Fig. 1, base shaft 16 and/or first links 21a; [0039]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the second gripper has a pressing element for pressing the cable into a mount of the cable passage and the control is programmed to control the second handling unit and/or the second gripper such that the cable is pressed into the mount by the pressing element.
Nishioka teaches wherein the second gripper has a pressing element for pressing the cable into a mount of the cable passage and the control is programmed to control the second handling unit and/or the second gripper such that the cable is pressed into the mount by the pressing element (see Figs. 9-10, pressing portion 38 and groove 54; [0010 "...the groove 54 is an example of a "cable laying portion."], [0018 "The second hand 32 has a pressing portion 38 for pressing the cable 60."], [0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to include a pressing element for pressing the cable into a mount of the cable passage and to control the second gripper to press the cable into the mount by the pressing element, as taught by Nishioka, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place.
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 9 (as discussed above in claim 9),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the pressing element is arranged at the second gripper such that the pressing element is movable via an actuator with respect to the gripping elements of the second gripper, and the control is programmed to control the actuator to press the pressing element onto the cable gripped by the gripping elements such that the cable is pressed into the mount by the pressing element.
Nishioka teaches wherein the pressing element is arranged at the second gripper such that the pressing element is movable via an actuator with respect to the gripping elements of the second gripper, and the control is programmed to control the actuator to press the pressing element onto the cable gripped by the gripping elements such that the cable is pressed into the mount by the pressing element (see Figs. 9-10, pressing portion 38; [0018 "The second hand 32 has a pressing portion 38 for pressing the cable 60."], [0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to arrange the pressing element at the second gripper such that the pressing element is movable via an actuator with respect to the gripping elements of the second gripper such that the cable is pressed into the mount by the pressing element, as taught by Nishioka, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata further teaches wherein the gripping elements of the second gripper are designed as guide elements and the control is programmed such that the second gripper is traveled along the cable to guide it (see Figs. 5-11, all, especially Figs. 7 and 11, D1; [0006] and [0071 "Next, the control device 14 controls the second robotic arm 13B to move the holding unit 42 in the first direction D1 and in a direction separating from the suction head 32 and the connector body 111 (Holding Position Changing Step: Step S3). As described above, since the second holding part 19 holds the intermediate part A1 of the harnesses 112 of the connector 110 with the play in the directions which intersect with the first directions D1, the second holding part 19 can be smoothly moved in the first directions D1 with respect to the first holding part 18."]-[0073])
Hirata is silent regarding the second gripper is traveled along the cable to guide it along the cable passage after the plug has been gripped by the first gripper or after the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element has been established.
Nishioka teaches wherein the gripping elements of the second gripper are designed as guide elements and the control is programmed such that the second gripper is traveled along the cable to guide it along the cable passage after the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element has been established (see Figs. 4-10, all, especially Figs. 1 and 8; [0010 "The cable laying device 10 of this embodiment shown in FIG. 1 is suitably used to lay a cable 60 connecting a pair of connectors 50, 52 in a groove 54 provided between the pair of connectors 50, 52."] and [0038]-[0062], especially [0038 "At this time, the control unit 20 adjusts the center of the circular hole-shaped holding portion 28 to coincide with the center of the held portion 62 . Even when the first hand 12 is lowered, a shape-retaining force acts on the cable 60, so the center of the held portion 62 is held at a fixed position."] and [0051 "(Step S7) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 8, the control unit 20 controls the first driving unit 14 to move the first hand 12 along the first elliptical trajectory 40 calculated in steps S5 and S6 described above."]-[0052 "When the first hand 12 moves beyond the other connector 52 , the cable 60 is laid in the groove 54 and an excess portion 64 of the cable 60 is produced on the side beyond the other connector 52 .The portion of the cable 60 that is laid in the groove 54 will hereinafter be referred to as the laid portion 66."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to guide the second gripper along the cable passage after the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element has been established, as taught by Nishioka, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place.
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata further teaches wherein the first gripper has a plug-in actuator for moving the plug into a plugged-in position with the plug mating element and/or has a compensation unit that permits a compensation movement of the gripper with respect to the handling unit in at least one operating mode (see Figs. 5-11, all, especially Fig. 8; [0006], [0065], [0068 "The control device 14 then causes the suction head 32 to suck and hold the connector body 111 of the connector 110 (Connector Body Holding Step: Step S1)."] and [0075 "Next, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in the workspace P2, the connector body 111 of the connector 110 is positioned above the socket 102 of the substrate 101. Then, the connector 110 is moved downwardly, and the connector body 111 is fitted into the socket 102 to engage the socket 102 with the connector body 111."]).
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Hirata teaches a method for the automated establishment of a plug-in connection of a plug arranged at a cable to a plug mating element, and for the automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage using the device according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata further teaches wherein the method comprises:
gripping and plugging the plug by the first gripper (see Figs. 5-11, all, especially Fig. 8; [0006], [0065], [0068 "The control device 14 then causes the suction head 32 to suck and hold the connector body 111 of the connector 110 (Connector Body Holding Step: Step S1)."] and [0075 "Next, as illustrated in FIG. 8, in the workspace P2, the connector body 111 of the connector 110 is positioned above the socket 102 of the substrate 101. Then, the connector 110 is moved downwardly, and the connector body 111 is fitted into the socket 102 to engage the socket 102 with the connector body 111."]);
gripping the cable by the second gripper (see Figs. 5-11, all, especially Figs. 7-8 and 11; [0006], [0057], [0070 "Thus, the intermediate part A1 of the harnesses 112 of the connector 110 is held by the through-hole 49 of the holding unit 42 with the play (Harness Holding Step: Step S2)."]-[0073]).
Hirata is silent regarding positioning the cable in the cable passage by operating the second handling unit for moving the second gripper gripping the cable.
Nishioka teaches wherein the method comprises:
gripping the cable by the second gripper (see Fig. 3, all; [0006] and [0012]-[0015], especially [0013 "The first hand 12 hooks and holds a part of the cable 60, and has a pair of claws 22 and an opening/closing drive unit 24 ."]); and
positioning the cable in the cable passage by operating the second handling unit for moving the second gripper gripping the cable (see Figs. 9-10, all; [0010 "...the groove 54 is an example of a "cable laying portion."], [0052 "When the first hand 12 moves beyond the other connector 52 , the cable 60 is laid in the groove 54 and an excess portion 64 of the cable 60 is produced on the side beyond the other connector 52. The portion of the cable 60 that is laid in the groove 54 will hereinafter be referred to as the laid portion 66 .."]-[0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to position the cable in the cable passage by operating the second handling unit for moving the second gripper gripping the cable, as taught by Nishioka, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place.
Regarding Claim 18
Modified Hirata teaches the device according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata further teaches wherein the first handling unit and the second handling unit are each a multi-axis robot (see Fig. 1, robotic arms 13A-13B; [0039]).
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Hirata teaches the device according to claim 4 (as discussed above in claim 4),
Hirata further teaches wherein a first movement space of the first and second handling units is smaller than a second movement space of the third handling unit (see Fig 1, all; [0039]-[0041]; the movement space of the robotic arms 13A-13B is smaller than the movement space of the carriage 12 because the carriage is free to move around it's environment via its wheels 12a, while the robotic arms 13A-13B are restricted to being fixed to the carriage 12a.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka, in view of Ichinose et al. (US 20180272463 A1 and Ichinose hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 14
Nishioka teaches a gripper for gripping a cable (see all Figs., especially 9-10; [0006]), wherein the gripper has at least two gripping elements for mechanically gripping the cable between the at least two gripping elements (see first hand 12 and claw portions 22 in most Figs., especially Fig. 3; [0006] and [0012]-[0015], especially [0013 "The first hand 12 hooks and holds a part of the cable 60, and has a pair of claws 22 and an opening/closing drive unit 24 ."]), and a pressing element for pressing the cable into a mount while it is gripped by the at least two gripping elements (see Figs. 9-10, pressing portion 38 and groove 54; [0010 "...the groove 54 is an example of a "cable laying portion."], [0018 "The second hand 32 has a pressing portion 38 for pressing the cable 60."], [0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."] and [0062]), wherein the gripper is configured to be guided along the cable while the cable is gripped between the at least two gripping elements (see Figs. 4-10, all, especially Fig. 8; [0038]-[0062], especially [0038 "At this time, the control unit 20 adjusts the center of the circular hole-shaped holding portion 28 to coincide with the center of the held portion 62 . Even when the first hand 12 is lowered, a shape-retaining force acts on the cable 60, so the center of the held portion 62 is held at a fixed position."] and [0051 "(Step S7) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 8, the control unit 20 controls the first driving unit 14 to move the first hand 12 along the first elliptical trajectory 40 calculated in steps S5 and S6 described above."]) and to press the cable into the mount (see Figs. 9-10, pressing portion 38 and groove 54; [0018 "The second hand 32 has a pressing portion 38 for pressing the cable 60."], [0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."] and [0062]).
Nishioka is silent regarding wherein the pressing element is a roller rotationally supported on the gripper, and
the roller is guided along the cable in rolling contact with the cable to press the cable into the mount.
Ichinose teaches a gripper for gripping a cable (see all Figs., especially Fig. 1; [0012]), has a pressing element for pressing the cable into a mount while (see Figs. 1 and 3-4, pressing roller 23 and/or 33; [0012 "...the first and second press rollers to move the first and second press rollers on the lead wire while pressing the lead wire..."], [0031]-[0032 "The cylinder 21 can apply predetermined pressure to the lead wire 12 via the press roller 23."] and [0044]), wherein the pressing element is a roller rotationally supported on the gripper (see Figs. 3-4, pressing roller 23 and/or 33 and rotational axis 22j and/or 32j; [0031 "The (electrical) cylinder 21, a press member 22, and a press roller 23 constitute the press mechanism 20 (a first press mechanism), and the press roller 23 (a first press roller) can perform a rotational operation centering around a rotational axis 22 j of the press member 22"] and [0056]), and the roller is guided along the cable in rolling contact with the cable to press the cable into the mount (see Figs. 1 and 3-4, all; [0012 "...the first and second press rollers to move the first and second press rollers on the lead wire while pressing the lead wire..."]-[0014], [0031]-[0032 "The cylinder 21 can apply predetermined pressure to the lead wire 12 via the press roller 23."] and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pressing element of the gripper of Nishioka to be a roller rotationally supported on the gripper and to be guided along the cable in rolling contact with the cable to press the cable into the mount, as taught by Ichinose, in order to press the cable while moving along the cable to reduce unintentional displacement of the cable.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (as modified by Nishioka) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Sverdlov et al. (US 20220089237 A1 and Sverdlov hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Hirata teaches the method according to claim 15 (as discussed above in claim 15),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the plug-in connection is a connection of cabling a battery module during manufacture of a vehicle having a hybrid and/or electric drive, the battery module comprising the plug mating element, the method comprising connecting the battery module to a second battery module or to a controller of the vehicle via the cable.
Sverdlov teaches a device for an automated establishment of a plug-in connection of a plug arranged at a cable to a plug mating element and for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see all Figs., especially Figs. 71 and 180E; [0010] and [4191]-[4200]), the device comprising:
a control programmed to control the first gripper and the first handling unit to grip the plug arranged on the cable and to establish the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element (see [4191]-[4200], especially [4195 "In a fourth step, an electrical connection is provided between the battery modules 1130 a of the battery pack (S1114, FIG. 180E). This is achieved by connecting a Flex PCB cable to each of the battery modules in the row 1130 a."], [4198 "In a fifth step, a housing 1141 is applied to the battery pack (S1115, FIG. 180F). The end of the Flex PCB is attached to the electrical connector. The top cover 1141 a is attached to the base plate using screws or removable urethane adhesive."] and [4200 "The assembly of these components by robots enhances safety, so that engineers have reduced exposure to the high voltage of the HVBMs."]);
wherein the plug-in connection is a connection of cabling a battery module during manufacture of a vehicle having a hybrid and/or electric drive, the battery module comprising the plug mating element, the method comprising connecting the battery module to a second battery module or to a controller of the vehicle via the cable (see Figs. 71 and 180E, all; [4155] and [4191]-[4200], especially [4195 "In a fourth step, an electrical connection is provided between the battery modules 1130 a of the battery pack (S1114, FIG. 180E). This is achieved by connecting a Flex PCB cable to each of the battery modules in the row 1130 a."], [4198 "In a fifth step, a housing 1141 is applied to the battery pack (S1115, FIG. 180F). The end of the Flex PCB is attached to the electrical connector. The top cover 1141 a is attached to the base plate using screws or removable urethane adhesive."] and [4200 "The assembly of these components by robots enhances safety, so that engineers have reduced exposure to the high voltage of the HVBMs."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to connect a cabling of a battery module during manufacture of a vehicle having a hybrid and/or electric drive, the battery module including the plug mating element, as taught by Sverdlov, in order to enhance safety by reducing human exposure to high voltages.
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Hirata teaches the device according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the control is configured for cabling battery modules during manufacture of a vehicle.
Sverdlov teaches wherein the control is configured for cabling battery modules during manufacture of a vehicle (see Figs. 71 and 180E, all; [4155] and [4191]-[4200], especially [4195 "In a fourth step, an electrical connection is provided between the battery modules 1130 a of the battery pack (S1114, FIG. 180E). This is achieved by connecting a Flex PCB cable to each of the battery modules in the row 1130 a."], [4198 "In a fifth step, a housing 1141 is applied to the battery pack (S1115, FIG. 180F). The end of the Flex PCB is attached to the electrical connector. The top cover 1141 a is attached to the base plate using screws or removable urethane adhesive."] and [4200 "The assembly of these components by robots enhances safety, so that engineers have reduced exposure to the high voltage of the HVBMs."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to be configured for cabling battery modules during manufacture of a vehicle, as taught by Sverdlov, in order to enhance safety by reducing human exposure to high voltages.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (as modified by Nishioka) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20160297075 A1 and Lee hereinafter) .
Regarding Claim 21
Modified Hirata teaches the device according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the first gripper has an alignment element and the control is configured to control the device to bring the alignment element into contact with at least one side surface of the plug mating element to align the plug with the plug mating element.
Lee teaches a device (see all Figs.; [0009]-[0011]) for an automated establishment of a plug-in connection of a plug arranged at a cable to a plug mating element and for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see "flexible object 20" and "connector C" in most Figs, [0009]-[0011] and [0030]), the device comprising:
a first gripper for gripping the plug (see "moving part 300" in most Figs, [0009]-[0011], [0030] and [0033]);
a first handling unit (see "apparatus 10" in most Figs, [0009]-[0012], [0030]-[0032] and [0038]) having a first base) and
a control programmed to control the first gripper and the first handling unit to grip the plug arranged on the cable and to establish the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element (see all Figs., especially 6A-6C; [0009]-[0011] and [0050]-[0053]);
wherein the first gripper has an alignment element and the control is configured to control the device to bring the alignment element into contact with at least one side surface of the plug mating element to align the plug with the plug mating element (see Figs. 6A-6C, fixing part 400; [0011] and [0050]-[0054], especially [0052 "...the fixing part 400 contacts the board B to which the connector C is combined, and the flexible object 20 contacts the connector C. Movement of the fixing part 400 is limited by the board B in a moving direction."] and [0053 "...the movement of the fixing part 400 is limited by the board B in the moving direction, and the moving part 300 may continue to move toward the connector C such that it allows the flexible object 20 to engage with the connector C by pressing the flexible object 20."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to include an alignment element and to control the device to bring the alignment element into contact with at least one side surface of the plug mating element to align the plug with the plug mating element, as taught by Lee, in order to stably engage the plug with the plug mating element.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (as modified by Nishioka) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ichinose.
Regarding Claim 22
Modified Hirata teaches the device according to claim 9 (as discussed above in claim 9),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the pressing element is a roller rotationally supported on the second gripper, with a pressing surface of the pressing element being configured for being in contact with the cable while the second gripper is guided along the cable, in order to apply a pressing force onto the cable to press the cable into the mount.
Nishioka teaches wherein a pressing surface of the pressing element being configured for being in contact with the cable while the second gripper is guided along the cable, in order to apply a pressing force onto the cable to press the cable into the mount (see Figs. 9-10, pressing portion 38 and groove 54; [0010 "...the groove 54 is an example of a "cable laying portion."], [0018 "The second hand 32 has a pressing portion 38 for pressing the cable 60."], [0053 "(Step S8) Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 9, the control unit 20 controls the second driving unit 34 to move the second hand 32 and cause the second hand 32 to press down on a part of the installation target 66. At this time, more specifically, a part of the installation portion 66 on the side of the other connector 52 is pressed down by the pressing portion 38 of the second hand 32. The portion of the laid portion 66 that is pressed down by the second hand 32 will hereinafter be referred to as a pressed portion 70."] and [0062]).
Ichinose teaches a device for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see all Figs., especially Fig. 1; [0012]), the device comprising:
a second handling unit (see Fig. 1, vibration bonding apparatus 100; [0025]);
wherein the second gripper has a pressing element for pressing the cable into a mount of the cable passage and the control is programmed to control the second handling unit such that the cable is pressed into the mount by the pressing element (see Figs. 1 and 3-4, pressing roller 23 and/or 33; [0012 "...the first and second press rollers to move the first and second press rollers on the lead wire while pressing the lead wire..."], [0031]-[0032 "The cylinder 21 can apply predetermined pressure to the lead wire 12 via the press roller 23."] and [0044]).
wherein the pressing element is a roller rotationally supported on the second gripper, with a pressing surface of the pressing element being configured for being in contact with the cable in order to apply a pressing force onto the cable to press the cable into the mount (see Figs. 3-4, rotational axis 22j and/or 32j; [0031 "The (electrical) cylinder 21, a press member 22, and a press roller 23 constitute the press mechanism 20 (a first press mechanism), and the press roller 23 (a first press roller) can perform a rotational operation centering around a rotational axis 22 j of the press member 22"] and [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to include a pressing roller rotationally supported on the second gripper, with a pressing surface of the pressing element being configured for being in contact with the cable while the second gripper is guided along the cable to apply a pressing force onto the cable to press the cable into the mount, as taught by Nishioka and Ichinose, in order to press any excess length of the cable into the cable passage to secure the cable in place and to reduce unintentional displacement of the cable.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (as modified by Nishioka) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hariki et al. (US 20040266276 A1 and Hariki hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 23
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein the second gripper has two rollers as gripping elements between which the cable is gripped, with the rollers being rotatably supported on the second gripper.
Hariki teaches a device for an automated establishment of a plug-in connection of a plug arranged at a cable to a plug mating element and for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see all Figs.; [0008],), the device comprising:
a first gripper for gripping the plug (see Fig. 2-6, second hand 21; [0008] and [0026]);
a first handling unit (see Fig. 2-6, second robot 20; [0008] and [0025]); and
at least one second gripper for gripping the cable, wherein the second gripper is a mechanical gripper comprising two gripping elements moveable with respect to each other between which the cable is gripped (see Fig. 2-6, first hand 11; [0008] and [0025]-[0026]),
a second handling unit (see Fig. 2-6, first robot 10; [0008] and [0025]), and
a control programmed to control the first gripper and the first handling unit to grip the plug arranged on the cable and to establish the plug-in connection of the plug with the plug mating element (see Fig. 4, steps S4-S5; Fig. 6, steps SS4-SS6; [0014], [0026], [0036]-[0038] and [0043]-[0046]) and further programmed to control the second gripper and the second handling unit to grip the cable (see Fig. 4, steps S1-S3; Fig. 5, steps SS1-SS2; [0008], [0026] and [0031]-[0034]);
wherein the second gripper has two rollers as gripping elements between which the cable is gripped, with the rollers being rotatably supported on the second gripper (see Fig. 2, rolls 11r; Figs. 4-5, all; [0013], [0026], [0033]-[0034] and [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the second gripper of the device of modified Hirata to include two rollers as gripping elements between which the cable is gripped, with the rollers being rotatably supported on the second gripper, as taught by Hariki, in order to straighten the cable and thereby reduce instability of the position and posture of the plug.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (as modified by Nishioka) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukou (US 20200122342 A1 and Mukou hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 24
Modified Hirata teaches the device in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Hirata is silent regarding further comprising:
a third gripper for gripping a second plug arranged on a second end of the cable, and
a third handling unit having a third base, a third end member and a plurality of third axes for positioning the third end member with respect to the third base, the third gripper being arranged at the third base,
wherein the control is further programmed to control the third gripper and the third handling unit to grip the second plug arranged on the second end of the cable and to establish a second plug-in connection of the second plug with a second plug mating element.
Mukou teaches a device for an automated establishment of a plug-in connection of a plug arranged at a cable to a plug mating element and for an automated mounting of the cable to a cable passage (see all Figs.; [0007]), the device comprising:
further comprising:
a third gripper for gripping a second plug arranged on a second end of the cable (see Figs. 2-3 and 6, movable chuck unit (pressing portion, movable holding portion) 7 of second holding unit/portion 32; [0007], [0026]-[0031] and [0088]), and
a third handling unit having a third base (see Figs. 2-3, second holding unit/portion 32; [0008] and [0043]-[0045]), a third end member and a plurality of third axes for positioning the third end member with respect to the third base, the third gripper being arranged at the third base (see Fig. 1, joint axes J1-J6 and/or Figs. 2-3, linear drive device 4 and/or 8; [0023], [0026], [0031] and [0033]),
wherein the control is further programmed to control the third gripper and the third handling unit to grip the second plug arranged on the second end of the cable and to establish a second plug-in connection of the second plug with a second plug mating element (see Figs. 3-4, all; [0007] and [0026]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to include a third gripper for gripping a second plug arranged on a second end of the cable, and a third handling unit having a third base, a third gripper for gripping a second plug arranged on a second end of the cable, and a third handling unit having a third base, wherein the control is further programmed to control the third gripper and the third handling unit to grip the second plug arranged on the second end of the cable and to establish a second plug-in connection of the second plug with a second plug mating element, as taught by Mukou, in order to facilitate the plug-in operation by plugging in a variety of types cables having more than one plug.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (as modified by Nishioka and Sverdlov) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mukou.
Regarding Claim 25
Modified Hirata teaches the method according to claim 16 (as discussed above in claim 16),
Hirata is silent regarding wherein a second plug is arranged on a second end of the cable, and the second battery module or the controller of the vehicle comprises a second plug mating element, and wherein the method further comprises controlling a third gripper and a third handling unit to grip the second plug arranged on the second end of the cable and to establish a plug-in connection of the second plug with the second plug mating element.
Mukou teaches wherein a second plug is arranged on a second end of the cable (see Fig. 3, connector 22 near second holding unit 32; [0020]-[0022]), and wherein the method further comprises controlling a third gripper and a third handling unit to grip the second plug arranged on the second end of the cable and to establish a plug-in connection of the second plug with the second plug mating element (see Figs. 3-4, all; [0007] and [0026]-[0031]).
Sverdlov teaches the second battery module or the controller of the vehicle comprises a second plug mating element (see Figs. 71 and 180E, all; [4155] and [4191]-[4200], especially [4195 "In a fourth step, an electrical connection is provided between the battery modules 1130 a of the battery pack (S1114, FIG. 180E). This is achieved by connecting a Flex PCB cable to each of the battery modules in the row 1130 a."], [4198 "In a fifth step, a housing 1141 is applied to the battery pack (S1115, FIG. 180F). The end of the Flex PCB is attached to the electrical connector. The top cover 1141 a is attached to the base plate using screws or removable urethane adhesive."] and [4200 "The assembly of these components by robots enhances safety, so that engineers have reduced exposure to the high voltage of the HVBMs."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of modified Hirata to include a second plug arranged on a second end of the cable, and control a third gripper and a third handling unit to grip the second plug arranged on the second end of the cable and to establish a plug-in connection of the second plug with the second plug mating element, as taught by Mukou, in order to facilitate the plug-in operation by plugging in a variety of types cables having more than one plug.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights