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 1-10 and 18-19 in the reply filed on 05/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, ln 2, “the opening” should read –an opening--.
In claim 18, ln 29, “and the the” should read --an--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 7, and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rendered indefinite because it is not clear what limitations are required by the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean:
- wherein the mold body has a mold base,
- wherein in the first position the first portion is oriented parallel or inclined obliquely to the mold base, and
- wherein in the second position the first portion is either spaced further apart from the mold base than in the first position or arranged closer to the mold base than in the first position.
Claims 4 recites the limitation "the adaptable manufacturing mold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is similarly rendered indefinite because it is not clear if the adaptable manufacturing mold is the manufacturing mold introduced in claim 1, or a newly introduced adaptable manufacturing mold. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted to mean the manufacturing mold of claim 1.
Claims 7 and 19 are rendered indefinite because it is not clear what limitations are required by the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean:
- wherein the first actuator either has at least one pressure chamber that can be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid in order to move the first portion between the first position and the second position and/or is configured as a dielectric elastomer actuator.
Claim 18 is rendered indefinite because it appears that a portion of the claim has been inadvertently left out (ln 28). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean wherein in the second position of the first portion and in the fourth position of the second portion, an opening is widened relative to the first position of the first portion and the third position of the second portion.
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) 1-6, 8-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einert et al. (US2019/0161032) hereinafter Einert in view of Reid (US3643911 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Einert teaches:
A manufacturing mold for manufacturing a cable harness for a vehicle ([0092, 0130]),
- wherein the manufacturing mold comprises a mold body (Fig 10, 11A: mold 15; [0130]),
- at least a first [actuator] (Fig 35: means 1600; [0212]);
- wherein the mold body is made from an elastically reversibly deformable material and at least partially surrounds a mold cavity (Fig 10, 11a, 35: holding device 40, first holding element 65, second holding element 70; [0135, 0147]),
- wherein the first actuator acts on a first portion of the mold body (Fig 10, 11a, 35: first holding element 65; [0135, 0140-0143, 0147, 0212, 0214-0216]),
- wherein the first portion at least partially delimits the mold cavity on the inside (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0130, 0135, 0140-0143; [0214-0216]),
- wherein the cable harness can at least be manufactured in the mold cavity ([0130, 0209-0221]),
- wherein the first actuator is designed to reversibly pivot the first portion between a first position and a second position that is different from the first position (Fig 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Einert does not teach:
- wherein the manufacturing mold comprises at least a first actuator,
- wherein the first actuator is coupled to a first portion of the mold body.
Einert further teaches that the means 1600 may be a mechanical tool used to reversibly bend open the portion of the elastic mold body.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molds, Reid teaches a manufacturing mold (Fig 3-4: mold liner 10) comprising an actuator (Fig 3-4: bottom wall 32, hinge 34) wherein the actuator is coupled to a portion of an elastic mold body (Fig 3-4; col 1, ln 30-33; col 1, ln 40-44). Reid further teaches that the actuator is used to reversibly bend open the portion of the elastic mold body (Fig 3-4; col 2, ln 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the mechanical tool as taught by Einert with the wall and hinge mechanism to actuate the first and second holding elements as taught by Reid and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since Einert and Reid teaches the actuator is used to reversibly bend open a portion of the elastic mold body.
Regarding claim 2, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches:
- wherein the mold body has an opening for introducing at least one electrical cable into the mold cavity (Fig 10, 11a, 35: opening 35),
- wherein the opening opens into the mold cavity (Fig 10, 11a, 35),
- wherein the first portion adjoins the opening (Fig 10, 11a, 35),
- wherein in the second position of the first portion the opening is widened relative to the first position of the first portion (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Regarding claim 3, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches:
- wherein the mold body has a mold base (Fig ),
- wherein in the first position the first portion is oriented parallel or inclined obliquely to the mold base (Fig 10, 11a),
- wherein in the second position the first portion is either spaced further apart from the mold base than in the first position or arranged closer to the mold base than in the first position (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Regarding claim 4, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches
- wherein the mold body has a second portion (Fig 10, 11a, 35: first holding element 70; [0135, 0140-0143, 0147]),
- wherein the second portion is arranged offset to the first portion (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0142]),
- pivoting the second portion reversibly between a third position and a fourth position which is different from the third position (Fig 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Reid further teaches arranging the actuator is on and/or in the portion of the mold body that bends (Fig 3-4; col 1, ln 30-33; col 1, ln 40-44),
Einert in view of Reid further teaches wherein the adaptable manufacturing mold has a second actuator (see art rejection of claim 1),
Given the above, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Einert in view of Reid teaches:
- wherein the second actuator is arranged on and/or in the second portion,
- wherein the second actuator is configured to pivot the second portion reversibly between a third position and a fourth position which is different from the third position.
Regarding claim 5, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Einert further teaches:
- wherein the opening extends in its main direction of extension in a first direction (Fig 10, 11a, 34-35),
- wherein the second portion is arranged opposite the first portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and at least partially delimits the opening opposite the first portion (Fig 10, 11a, 34-35; [0142]),
- wherein in the first position of the first portion and in the third position of the second portion, the opening has a first minimum opening width in the second direction (Fig 10, 11a, 34-35; [0212, 0214-0216]),
- wherein in the second position of the first portion and in the fourth position of the second portion, the opening has a second minimum opening width in the second direction which is larger than the first opening width (Fig 10, 11a, 34-35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Regarding claim 6, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Reid further teaches wherein the first actuator is arranged on the outside of the mold body, and/or - wherein the first actuator is at least partially embedded in the mold body (Fig 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches wherein the first actuator is configured to deform the mold body in an elastically reversible manner when the first portion is pivoted between the first position and the second position (Fig 10, 11a, 34-35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Regarding claim 9, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches wherein in the second position the first portion encloses an angle relative to the first position (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0147]),
Einert in view of Reid does not explicitly teach wherein the angle is at least 20º.
However, Einert teaches a range of values for the angle that overlaps with the claimed range (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0147]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the angle as taught by Einert that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches a system having an adaptable manufacturing mold ([0128]).
Reid further teaches:
- a control apparatus (Fig 3-4: bottom wall 32),
- wherein the control apparatus is connected to the first actuator (Fig 3-4; col 1, ln 30-33; col 1, ln 40-44),
- wherein the control apparatus is configured to control the first actuator such that the first actuator moves the first portion between the first position and the second position (Fig 3-4; col 2, ln 42-45).
Regarding claim 18, Einert teaches:
A manufacturing mold for manufacturing a cable harness for a vehicle ([0092, 0130]),
- wherein the manufacturing mold comprises a mold body (Fig 10, 11A: mold 15; [0130]),
- at least a first actuator (Fig 35: means 1600; [0212]);
- wherein the mold body is made from an elastically reversibly deformable material and at least partially surrounds a mold cavity (Fig 10, 11a, 35: holding device 40, first holding element 65, second holding element 70; [0135, 0147]),
- wherein the first actuator acts on a first portion of the mold body and a second portion of the mold body (Fig 10, 11a, 35: first holding element 65, second holding element 70; [0135, 0140-0143, 0147, 0212, 0214-0216]),
- wherein the first portion at least partially delimits the mold cavity on the inside (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0130, 0135, 0140-0143; [0214-0216]),
- wherein the cable harness can at least be manufactured in the mold cavity ([0130, 0209-0221]),
- wherein the first actuator is designed to reversibly pivot the first portion between a first position and a second position that is different from the first position (Fig 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
- wherein the second portion is arranged offset to the first portion (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0142]),
- pivoting the second portion reversibly between a third position and a fourth position which is different from the third position (Fig 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
- wherein in the second position of the first portion and in the fourth position of the second portion, an opening is widened relative to the first position of the first portion and the third position of the second portion (Fig 10, 11a, 35; opening 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Einert does not teach:
- wherein the manufacturing mold comprises at least a first actuator and a second actuator,
- wherein the first actuator is coupled to a first portion of the mold body and the second actuator is arranged on and/or in a second portion of the mold body,
- wherein the second actuator is configured to pivot the second portion reversibly between a third position and a fourth position which is different from the third position,
Einert further teaches that the means 1600 may be a mechanical tool, but us silent on the specific device used to bend open and close the holding elements. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other actuators in the art for a suitable actuator.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molds, Reid teaches a manufacturing mold (Fig 3-4: mold liner 10) comprising an actuator (Fig 3-4: bottom wall 32, hinge 34) wherein the actuator is coupled to and arranged on a portion of an elastic mold body (Fig 3-4; col 1, ln 30-33; col 1, ln 40-44). Reid further teaches that the actuator is used to reversibly bend open the portion of the elastic mold body (Fig 3-4; col 2, ln 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the wall and hinge mechanism as taught by Einert to actuate the first and second holding elements of Reid and the results would have been predictable since Reid teaches the actuator is used to reversibly bend open a portion of the elastic mold body.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einert in view of Reid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heimer et al. (US4008990) hereinafter Heimer.
Regarding claim 7, Einert in view of Reid teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert in view of Reid does not teach:
- wherein the first actuator has at least one pressure chamber that can be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid in order to move the first portion between the first position and the second position
and/or
- wherein the first actuator is configured as a dielectric elastomer actuator.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molds, Heimer teaches an actuator having at least one pressure chamber that can be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid in order to move a first portion between a first position and a second position for the motivation of quickly closing the mold before foaming occurs (Fig 2-3: hydraulic cylinder 13; col 1, ln 22-30; col 4, ln 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator as taught by Einert in view of Reid with the hydraulic mechanism as taught by Heimer in order to quickly close the mold before foaming occurs.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einert in view of Reid and Heimer.
Regarding claim 19, Einert teaches:
A manufacturing mold for manufacturing a cable harness for a vehicle ([0092, 0130]),
- wherein the manufacturing mold comprises a mold body (Fig 10, 11A: mold 15; [0130]),
- at least a first actuator (Fig 35: means 1600; [0212]);
- wherein the mold body is made from an elastically reversibly deformable material and at least partially surrounds a mold cavity (Fig 10, 11a, 35: holding device 40, first holding element 65, second holding element 70; [0135, 0147]),
- wherein the first actuator acts on a first portion of the mold body (Fig 10, 11a, 35: first holding element 65; [0135, 0140-0143, 0147, 0212, 0214-0216]),
- wherein the first portion at least partially delimits the mold cavity on the inside (Fig 10, 11a, 35; [0130, 0135, 0140-0143; [0214-0216]),
- wherein the cable harness can at least be manufactured in the mold cavity ([0130, 0209-0221]),
- wherein the first actuator is designed to reversibly pivot the first portion between a first position and a second position that is different from the first position (Fig 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Einert does not teach:
- wherein the manufacturing mold comprises at least a first actuator,
- wherein the first actuator is coupled to a first portion of the mold body.
Einert teaches that the means 1600 may be a mechanical tool, but us silent on the specific device used to bend open and close the holding elements. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other actuators in the art for a suitable actuator.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molds, Reid teaches a manufacturing mold (Fig 3-4: mold liner 10) comprising at least a first actuator (Fig 3-4: bottom wall 32, hinge 34) wherein the first actuator is coupled to a portion of an elastic mold body (Fig 3-4; col 1, ln 30-33; col 1, ln 40-44). Reid further teaches that the actuator is used to reversibly bend open the first portion of the elastic mold body (Fig 3-4; col 2, ln 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the wall and hinge mechanism as taught by Einert to actuate the first and second holding elements of Reid and the results would have been predictable since Reid teaches the actuator is used to reversibly bend open a portion of the elastic mold body.
Einert in view of Reid does not teach:
- wherein the first actuator has at least one pressure chamber that can be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid in order to move the first portion between the first position and the second position
and/or
- wherein the first actuator is configured as a dielectric elastomer actuator.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molds, Heimer teaches an actuator having at least one pressure chamber that can be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid in order to move a first portion between a first position and a second position for the motivation of quickly closing the mold before foaming occurs (Fig 2-3: hydraulic cylinder 13; col 1, ln 22-30; col 4, ln 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator as taught by Einert in view of Reid with the hydraulic mechanism as taught by Heimer in order to quickly close the mold before foaming occurs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741