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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment filed on 07/27/2026.
Claims 1-6 & 8-18 have been amended,
new claims 19-21 have been added,
claim 7 has been canceled, and
claims 1-6 & 8-21 are pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 12, line 22 to page 13, line 7) that Horiki does not teach limitation “the data stored by the holding device comprises information about a wire population of the wire to be held by the holding device.”
Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive. First, the claim data is merely conveying a message or meaning about the wire population. Thus, the limitation is non-functional descriptive material and no patentable weight is given. See MPEP 2111.05(I)(B)(“Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product.”). Furthermore, even in arguendo, any patentable weight is given, the argument is not persuasive as the information concerning the position of the holding device and position of the terminal cavity is related to the wire. In the cited reference, the holding device position information/data is associated with the holding device holding the wire, and the destination location is determined based ono the holding device position information for the purpose of handling the wire. Thus, there is an establishment of correspondence between a particular wire, the holding device, and the terminal cavity. Accordingly, information used to identify and control the handling of a wire associated with the holder. The distinction asserted by the Applicant is concerned with the particular manner in which the information is associated with the wire represented, not the fundamental operation of the wire and how it is handled. Furthermore, as detailed below in 35 USC § 112 claim rejection, the claimed limitation “wire population” is ambiguous and renders the claim indefinite as it provides no clear intended interpretation for the wire’s information/data.
The applicant also argues (page 13, lines 9-15) that Horiki does not teach the claimed holding device is not configured to hold the data because the data is stored in a memory unit 102, located elsewhere and not a part of the holding device.
Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive as no patentable weight is given to content of the claimed data. See supra response.
In response to the arguments (pages 13-14) that limitation "encoder" is not directed to non-functional descriptive material because the value can be “read by a claimed acquisition device,” it is respectfully disagreed.
Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. MPEP 2111.05(I)(B).
In this case, the printed matter, limitation "the data comprising information about a wire population of the wire to be held by the holding device" [claim 1] and "an encoder configured to store the data" [claim 8] is merely directed to content for a human reader and does not show any functional relationship to its substrate, i.e., holding device. See C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that a radiographic marker has no functional relationship to its substrate and is given no patentable weight although the radiographic marker can be read by CT scanner). Furthermore, Applicant fails to show any functional relationship to its substrate, i.e., holding device in claim 1 or encoder in claim 8 and instead asserted functional relationship to acquisition device, which is not the substrate of the claimed data.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive as the particular content of the encoded information [wire population] does not produce a functional interaction with a physical holder device or wire beyond communicating the information to a human, machine, or any reader. Thus, as recited in claim 8, the “encoder” is given no patentable weight because it serves to be read by the reader, in which the reader [memory unit 102] is already provided with the data[wire population].
For the reasons explained above, the examiner asserts the position of rejection for amended claim 1. For the same reasons, independent claim 21, which recites the claimed subject matter, and dependent claims 2-6 & 8-20 are rejected.
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 1-6 & 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected for being indefinite as it recites the limitation “a wire population” in line 6. The limitation “wire population” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is ambiguous whether the feature is interpreted as:
the presence/occupancy of a wire
the number of wires
the set/group of wires
the type of wires
the identity of wires
the arrangement of wires
the combination and configuration of wires
As such, it is not clear how the claimed limitation is intended to be interpreted. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been examined, as best understood, to encompass any of the potential reasonable interpretations noted above, and more as the specifications does not provide a definition for “wire population”. For the same reason, dependent claims 2-20 therefor are rejected as well by virtue of its dependency and recitation of the limiting language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1- 5, 8- 11, 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horiki (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160329675 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horiki discloses a wire processing device (Title: Electric Wire Processing Device and Wiring Module Production Method) comprising:
A wire processing mechanism (cavity 81, ¶39) configured to process a wire (electric wire 9, ¶39),
A wire handling device (terminal insertion mechanism 2-5, ¶42) configured to transfer the wire to the wire processing mechanism,
Carrying device (fixing seat 11, ¶55),
A holding device (wire arraying member 90, ¶55) configured to hold the wire and to store data (identification codes of the respective wire retaining portions 902, ¶151), the holding device being releasably arranged on the carrying device (¶55, “the fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”), the data comprising information about a wire population of the wire to be held by the holding device (as detailed above in the response to argument and claim rejections 35 USC § 102 sections, the data and “wire population” is interpreted to correlate with Horiki’s data of the holding device and terminal cavity), and
An acquisition device (terminal-cavity correspondence data, ¶151) configured to acquire the data stored on the holding device
Regarding claim 2, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, wherein the carrying device is movable relative to the wire handling device (¶60, “the linear actuator 12 moves the fixing seat in the second direction… the linear actuator 12 selectively positions the wire retaining portions 902 of the wire arraying member 90 at a predetermined start position”).
Regarding claim 3, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a guide device (linear actuator 12, ¶55), the carrying device being mounted on the guide device so as to be movable translationally along the guide device (¶60, “the linear actuator 12 moves the fixing seat 11 in the second direction”).
Regarding claim 4, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, wherein the carrying device has a connection device configured to releasably connect the carrying device to the holding device (engagement structure, ¶55, “a well-known locking mechanism capable of holding a counterpart member with an engagement structure and releasing the holding may be employed as the wire arraying member locking mechanism 111”; fixing seat 11, ¶55, “the fixing seat 11 is a portion for holding the wire arraying member 90”).
Regarding claim 5, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a locking device (wire arraying member locking mechanism 111, ¶55) configured to lock the device on the carrying device and to release the holding device from the carrying device (¶55, “the fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”).
Regarding claim 8, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, wherein the holding device comprises an encoder configured to store the data therein (the encoder is a non-functional descriptive material and bears no patentable weight because the specification describes the encoder as a label storing (i.e., printed with) an identification code (Spec. p. 4); MPEP 2111.05(I)(B). Regardless, Horiki discloses an identification codes of the respective wire retaining portions 902 in FIG. 1, ¶151)
(Also refer to the rejection of claim 1, response to argument, and claim rejections 35 USC § 102 sections, as the data and “wire population” are interpreted to correlate with Horiki’s data of the holding device and terminal cavity).
Regarding claim 9, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, wherein the holding device has a connection mechanism configured to connect the holding device to the carrying device (¶55, “the fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”, the combination of the fixing seat 11 and locking mechanism 111 serves as the connection mechanism).
Regarding claim 10, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, wherein the holding device comprises a holding mechanism configured to hold the wire (¶50, “each wire retaining portion 902 includes a pair of members that clamp and retain… a portion of the electric wire 91”).
Regarding claim 11, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 10, wherein the holding mechanism comprises a locking mechanism (wire retaining portions 902, ¶50) for locking and releasing the wire (¶50, “each wire retaining portion 902 includes a pair of members that clamp and retain… a portion of the electric wire 91”, the wire retaining portion 902 serves as both the holding mechanism for holding the wire as well as the locking mechanism as it uses elastic force).
Regarding claim 19, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 2, wherein the carrying device is movable translationally back and forth along a movement direction relative to the wire handling device (¶60, “the linear actuator 12 moves the fixing seat in the second direction… the linear actuator 12 selectively positions the wire retaining portions 902 of the wire arraying member 90 at a predetermined start position”).
Regarding claim 21, Horiki discloses a wire processing device (Title: Electric Wire Processing Device and Wiring Module Production Method) comprising:
a wire processing mechanism (cavity 81, ¶39) configured to process a wire (electric wire 9, ¶39),
a wire handling device (terminal insertion mechanism 2-5, ¶42) configured to transfer the wire to the wire processing mechanism,
a carrying device (fixing seat 11, ¶55),
a holding device (wire arraying member 90, ¶55) configured to hold the wire, the holding device comprising an encoder configured to store data (identification codes of the respective wire retaining portions 902, ¶151; the encoder is a non-functional descriptive material and bears no patentable weight because the specification describes the encoder as a label storing (i.e., printed with) an identification code (Spec. p. 4); MPEP 2111.05(I)(B)),
(Also refer to the rejection of claim 1, response to argument, and claim rejections 35 USC § 102 sections, as the data and “wire population” are interpreted to correlate with Horiki’s data of the holding device and terminal cavity).
the holding device being releasably arranged on the carrying device (¶55, “the fixing seat 11 is provided with a wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”), and
an acquisition device (terminal-cavity correspondence data, ¶151) configured to acquire the data stored in the encoder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiki, and further in view of Chikyu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20080113555 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 1, wherein the holding device can be releasably arranged on the carrying device (¶55, “wire arraying member locking mechanism 111 that has a structure of capable of holding the wire arraying member 90 and releasing the holding”).
However, Horiki fails to disclose the holding device is a first one of at least two holding devices arranged on the carrying device one behind another along a longitudinal axis of the carrying device.
Chikyu discloses a device (Title: Manufacturing Apparatus for Wiring Harnesses and a Manufacturing Method for Wiring Harnesses) wherein the holding devices (plurality of oblong plate-shape base trays 3, ¶35) are arranged on the carrying device one behind another along a longitudinal axis of the carrying device (FIG. 1 depicts the base trays 3 lined up behind another in the longitudinal direction, perpendicular to the inserting direction of the wires).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Horiki discloses a wire processing device that uses a singular holding device to hold the wires in place and to be grabbed by the wire handling device. Chikyu discloses another wire processing device that instead uses a chain, made up of multiple oblong plate-shape base trays 3 that serve as the holding device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the multiple holding devices disclosed by Chikyu and implement them into the device of Horiki to achieve a chain-like conveyor belt type motion apparatus for moving the at least two holders along a longitudinal direction.
Claims 12-13 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiki, and further in view of Scharf (U.S. Patent Publication 3693231 A).
Regarding claim 12, Horiki further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 10, as detailed above.
However, Horiki fails to disclose the device further comprising a tube guide between the holding mechanism and a wire store.
Scharf discloses a wire processing device (Title: Double End Terminal Attachment Device) wherein the device comprises a tube guide (guide tube 102, col. 7, l. 67) between the holding mechanism and a wire store (conveyor gripper 20 & feed wheel 12, col. 7, l. 65 to col. 8, l. 4, “Thereafter, wire to be processed is pushed by means of feeding wheel 12 through the guide tubes with the extended movable guide tube 102 functioning to precisely place he moving wire in a given position upon a conveyor gripper 20 in order that the wire 96 may be eventually grabbed by the conveyor gripper 20 in the desired placement”).
PNG
media_image2.png
494
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
388
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Horiki discloses how a cable or wire may be moved throughout the wire processing device for final wire processing. Scharf teaches an apparatus of a wire processing device that incorporates the use of guide tubes that the cable or wire can travel through during wire processing for precise placement and before being grabbed by a conveyor gripper. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the guide tubes from Scharf’s disclosure and provide them to Horiki’s wire processing device as it would result in allowance for various wire placements and elevations around the apparatus (col. 7, ll. 51-59).
Regarding claim 13, Horiki, in view of Scharf, discloses the wire processing device according to claim 12, as detailed above, and Scharf further discloses the tube guide comprising of a flexible tube (extended movable guide tubes 102, col. 7, ll. 66-67).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 13 in the manner of using guiding tubes to properly align and lead wires to a wire holder).
Regarding claim 20, Horiki, in view of Scharf, further discloses the wire processing device according to claim 12, wherein the holding mechanism is connected to the tube guide.
(It would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify the guiding tube of Scharf to be continuous and fixed to the conveyor gripper 20 [holding mechanism], rather than have the guiding tube to be movable, as the modification represents a predictable variation in the positioning and mounting of the wires within the guiding tube. The established function of guiding the wire or any wire-like structure such as filaments, cables, and harnesses, to a holding mechanism is well known in the art, and a POSITA would have recognized that the guide tube does not need to be movable/adjustable if movement of the guide is not necessary to perform the guiding function.
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 12, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 20 in the manner of using guiding tubes to properly align and lead wires to a wire holder).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiki, in view of Scharf, and further in view of Cross (U.S. Patent Publication 4704775 A).
Regarding claim 14, Horiki, in view of Scharf, discloses the wire processing device according to claim 13, as detailed above.
However, both Horiki and Scharf fail to disclose the tube having a friction-reducing coating on an inner surface of the tube.
Cross discloses a wire processing device (Title: Turn Gate for use with a Robotic Wire Harness Assembly System), wherein the tube has a friction-reducing coating on an inner surface of the tube (FIG. col. 4, ll. 10-15, “The cord has a low coefficient of friction, minimizing hang up of the wire segments when they contact the cord. The finger 590 is also made of material having a low coefficient of friction, such as DELRIN, thereby minimizing abrasion between the finger and passing wire”; col. 4, ll. 53-56, “the reel has a TEFLON-coated cord 584 wrapped around its periphery and an internal spring (not shown) that tensions the cord”).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The combination of Horiki and Scharf teaches the use of a tube guide that a wire travels through during the final wire processing steps. Cross teaches another wire processing device that integrates the use of a reel that is coated with Teflon and Delrin that is also used to guide the wires down a set path. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the coating application from Cross’ disclosure and apply it to Scharf’s guide tubes as it would have allowed for guidance of the cord through the tube, providing reduction in wire abrasion, allowing an operator to apply constant tension in the cord during operation (Cross, col. 4, ll. 53-56).
Regarding claim 15, Horiki, in view of Scharf and Cross, discloses a wire processing system, and all further discloses the system comprising:
the wire processing device according to claim 1 (detailed above),
Cross discloses a storage device (de-reeling station 57, col. 3, l. 28) comprising a wire store configured to store the wire (replaceable wire reels or spools 70, col. 3, ll. 29-30),
wherein the wire processing device and the storage device (Scharf’s feed wheel 12, col. 4, l. 36; and/or Cross’ de-reeling station 57, col. 3, l. 28) are configured to guide the wire from the wire store to the holding device to be held by the holding device (The combination of Horiki, Scharf, and Cross teaches of a wire processing device that may comprise of a storage device [wire store] arranged to provide wire to the holding device).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 14, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 15 in the manner of using a set of tube guides to guide wires from a storage to the holding device during operation).
Regarding claim 16, Horiki, in view of Scharf and Cross, discloses the wire processing system according to claim 15, and Scharf further discloses the wire is at least partially guided between the wire store storing the wire and the holding device inside a tube guide comprising a flexible tube (extended movable guide tube 102, col. 7, ll. 66-67).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 14, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 16 in the manner of using a set of tube guides to guide wires from a storage to the holding device during operation).
Regarding claim 17, Horiki, in view of Scharf and Cross, discloses the wire processing system according to claim 15, and Horiki further discloses the holding device comprising an encoder configured to store the data therein the acquisition device being configured to acquire the data stored in the encoder (storage unit 102, ¶149, “the storage unit 102 stores, in addition to the control programs, data such as a predetermined path transport data, termina-cavity correspondence data, electric wire position data, and cavity position data”).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 14, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 17 in the manner of using a set of tube guides to guide wires from a storage to the holding device during operation).
Regarding claim 18, Horiki, in view of Scharf and Cross, discloses the wire processing system according to claim 15, and Cross further discloses the storage device being mobile (col. 3, ll. 18-21, “in the wire reeling subsystem 40 each wire segment is wound into an individual wire canister 20 that can be easily handled by a robot during the remaining steps of the harness assembly”; the wire reeling subsystem 40 acts as a small and compact version of the entire wire de-reeling station 57 being able to hold wire canisters that provide the wire to the wire processing system).
(Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 14, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 18 in the manner of using a set of tube guides to guide wires from a storage to the holding device during operation).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights