Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/204,723

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ROBOTICALLY ROUTING AND SECURING WIRING HARNESS BRANCHES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 01, 2023
Examiner
TRINH, MINH N
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Aptiv Technologies AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1286 granted / 1499 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1547
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1499 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 2/12/26 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse. An OA on the merits of claims 1-13 as follows: Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “within the vehicle” (claim 1, line 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-13 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. It is suggested to incorporate an assembly robot into the preamble of the claims as suggested below: -- A method of installing an electrical wiring harness in a vehicle using an assembly robot, “--, for clarity of the claim scope. “comprising:” (claim 1, line 3) should be more directed to method should be: --, said method comprising steps of”: --. It is also not known as to how step “wrapping“(claim 1, line 4) can be proceed without a wire supply in form of (e.g., wire reel or wire pool) and its related location with respect to a channel and the gripping mechanism of the robotic arm. It is suggested step of (e.g., supplying or providing a wire spool prior to wrapping step) for clarity of claim scope. “a robotic arm having” (claim 1, line 5) should be updated to: --“a robotic arm of the assembly robot which includes” --, as so to reflect as suggested in line 1 of the preamble above. “to pay out” (claim 1, line 8-9) is not understood should be updated to: -- “to pull out”-- “payed out” (claim 3, line 2) should be updated to: --“pulled out” --, to reflect changes as suggested above (see claim 1, lines 8-9). The recites of” within the vehicle” (claim 1, line 6) appears to be vague and indefinite since the location for housing within the vehicle is unknown at the time the use of: -- “within a designated location in the vehicle” --, for clarity of the claim. It is unclear as to exactly what applicant referring to as “a desired length” (claim 1, line 8-9) when there is no predetermining length prior to this. Also, for the connecting step of claim 2 to be taken place, step of: -- “providing the electrical connector and it structure “should be inserted before “connecting “step in claim 2. The phrase: “payed out” (claim 3, line 2) should be updated to: --“pulled out” --, for clarity of the claim. prior to “calculation” step in claim 3, determining a length of the least one branch circuit pulled out” must be set. For clarity of the method claim formats. It is unclear as to whether “a wire spool” (claim 1, line 4) is a part of the wire harness? Similar to the above claim 1 discussion, occurrence in claim 3, and 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al (US 20190115733) in view of Bloch et al (4677734) or Peterson et al (US 10205266) hereinafter ‘266. Peterson et al discloses the claimed regarding, a method of installing an electrical wiring harness in a vehicle, wherein the electrical wiring harness has at least one branch circuit terminated by an electrical connector, comprising: wrapping the at least one branch circuit 12 around a wire spool configured to be picked up and manipulated by a robotic arm having a gripping mechanism (see in light discussion in ¶ [0009] for the using of a robot to assist the process). Note that “a wire spool” configured to be picked up and manipulated by a robotic arm having a gripping mechanism” is well known in connection to wire supply for forming wire harness (e.g., Bloch et al Fig.1A, 70, 80 is/are wire spools or reels); placing the electrical wiring harness within the vehicle (see discussed in ¶¶ [0047-0048] or claim 9, lines 8-12); and regarding to limitation of “grasping the wire spool with the gripping mechanism while simultaneously moving the robotic arm and rotating the wire spool with the gripping mechanism to pay out a desired length of the at least one branch circuit” appear to meet by the robot assembler as mentioned by the Peterson et al (see discussed in ¶¶ [0028-0029] for the installation procedure of wire harness in the vehicle by the robot). Furthermore, if argued that the Peterson does not teach, regarding to “pay out a desired length of the at least one branch circuit by grasping the wire spool with the gripping mechanism” Then applicant refer to the robot system assembly of block includes a robot with gripping mechanism which can full fill multi duties including to pay out a desired length of at least one branch circuit from a wire spool or that as mentioned above (see Fig. 9) or Regarding to, the ‘266 as discussed in col. 2, lines 14-23, and lines 37-46, where the robotic assembler 30 can be used to grasp other shapes or object including the wire spool as noted above easier without any effort or modification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the teachings of Bloch or the ‘266 as mentioned above onto the Peterson in order to facilitate the payout process by utilizing the known and available process. Also, regarding, “grasping the wire spool with the gripping mechanism . . .” is not inventive method feature when departing from the Peterson as modified above and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills. The Peterson et al discloses, regarding, Claim 2, comprising: connecting the electrical connector of the at least one branch circuit to a corresponding electrical connector in the vehicle using the gripping mechanism (see Fig, 1, depicts that connector 10 connect to branch circuit 14). The prior art further discloses, regarding, Claim 2, comprising: connecting the electrical connector of the at least one branch circuit to a corresponding electrical connector in the vehicle using the gripping mechanism (see Bloch Fig, 9 and or Fig. 1 of the ‘266 where the connector 20 connect to the circuit branch 12). As applied to claim 3, regarding “calculating a length of the at least one branch circuit payed out from the wire spool based on a diameter of the wire spool, a number of rotations of the wire spool by the gripping mechanism, and a diameter of the at least one branch circuit” is therefore not inventive method when departing from modified of Peterson et al / Bloch et al /the ‘266 and common general knowledge of without exercising any inventive skills. Since, calculating “a length of a wire” from a spool can be as simply as linearly measure or simply multiply by circumference of the wire spool by an ordinary skill in the art. The Peterson et al discloses, regarding, Claim 12, packaging the wiring harness at least partially in a channel; and placing the channel and the wiring harness in the vehicle (see claim 9, lines 1-2, 8-10). Claim 13, in accordance with claim 12, removing the wire spool and the at least one branch circuit from the channel (see page 4, claim 9, lines 11-12). Potential Allowable claims Claims 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30. 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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 01, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 01, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 09, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 09, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604397
A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A FORMED FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603395
BATTERY MODULE ASSEMBLY APPARATUS USING VISION AND ASSEMBLY METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603337
ADJUSTING METHOD OF NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION AND PRODUCING METHOD OF LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY WITH REUSED ELECTRODE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603627
Method for Manufacturing Vibration Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597832
METHOD FOR LAMINATED CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1499 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month