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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 09/17/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-17 and 19-21 remain pending in the application
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) 1-2, 4-10, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einert et al. (US2019/0161032) hereinafter Einert in view of Ilievski et al. (US2014/0109560) hereinafter Ilievski.
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]),
- 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]),
- actuating 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]),
- reversibly pivoting 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 connected to a first portion of the mold body and at least partially embedded in the mold body.
In prior art seeking to solve the same problem of actuation of elastic bodies, Ilievski teaches a soft robotic actuator comprising networks of pressurized channels or chambers embedded in elastomeric bodies for the motivation of providing large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers ([0102-0103]).
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 actuation of the first elastic mold portion as taught by Einert to use the soft robotic actuator as taught by Ilievski in order to provide large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers.
Regarding claim 2, Einert in view of Ilievski 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 4, Einert in view of Ilievski 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]).
Einert in view of Ilievski does not teach a second actuator on and/or in the second portion
In prior art seeking to solve the same problem of actuation of elastic bodies, Ilievski teaches a soft robotic actuator comprising networks of pressurized channels or chambers embedded in elastomeric bodies for the motivation of providing large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers ([0102-0103]).
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 actuation of the second elastic mold portion as taught by Einert to use the soft robotic actuator as taught by Ilievski in order to provide large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers.
Regarding claim 5, Einert in view of Ilievski teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Einert further teaches:
- wherein the mold body comprises an opening with a 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 Ilievski teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert teaches the elastic mold portions that are actuated.
Ilievski further teaches that the soft body robot comprises the elastomeric body in which the actuating channels/chambers are embedded ([0013]).
Einert in view of Ilievski does not teach wherein the first actuator is arranged on the outside of the mold body.
However, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
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 rearranged the soft body robots as to be located on the outside of the mold body.
Regarding claim 7, Einert in view of Ilievski teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches moving the first portion between the first position and the second position (Fig 35; [0212, 0214-0216]).
Ilievski further teaches wherein the first actuator either: has at least one pressure chamber configured to be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid ([0013]) and/or is configured as a dielectric elastomer actuator ([0127]).
Regarding claim 8, Einert in view of Ilievski 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 Ilievski 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 Ilievski 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 Ilievski teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches A system having the manufacturing mold as claimed in claim 1 and moving the first portion between the first position and the second position (see art rejection of claim 1).
Ilievski further teaches a control apparatus, wherein the control apparatus is connected to the first actuator, wherein the control apparatus is configured to control the first actuator ([0013]).
Regarding claim 21, Einert in view of Ilievski teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches wherein the mold body has a mold base (Fig 10, 11a: lower side 19),
- wherein in the first position the first portion is oriented parallel or inclined obliquely to the mold base (Fig 10, 11a), and
- wherein in the second position the first portion is arranged closer to the mold base than in the first position (Fig 35; [0212]).
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]),
- 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]),
- reversibly pivoting 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,
- wherein the first actuator has at least one pressure chamber,
- wherein the pressure chamber is configured as a tubular free space in the first portion of the mold body, and
- wherein the pressure chamber can be filled with a pressurized pressure fluid in order to move the first portion between the first position and the second position.
In prior art seeking to solve the same problem of actuation of elastic bodies, Ilievski teaches a soft robotic actuator comprising networks of pressurized channels or chambers configured as a tubular free space embedded in elastomeric bodies for the motivation of providing large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers (Fig 2: channel 200; [0013, 0102-0103, 0111]).
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 actuation of the first elastic mold portion as taught by Einert to use the soft robotic actuator as taught by Ilievski in order to provide large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers.
Regarding claim 20, 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]),
- 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]),
- reversibly pivoting 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 connected to a first portion of the mold body,
- wherein the first actuator is configured as a soft robotic module.
In prior art seeking to solve the same problem of actuation of elastic bodies, Ilievski teaches a soft robotic actuator comprising networks of pressurized channels or chambers embedded in elastomeric bodies for the motivation of providing large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers (Fig 2: channel 200; [0013, 0102-0103, 0111]).
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 actuation of the first elastic mold portion as taught by Einert to use the soft robotic actuator as taught by Ilievski in order to provide large and versatile actuation to soft elastomers.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Einert in view of Ilievski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujikawa et al. (JPS61228915) hereinafter Fujikawa.
Regarding claim 3, Einert in view of Ilievski teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Einert further teaches:
- wherein the mold body has a mold base (Fig 10, 11a: lower side 19),
- wherein in the first position the first portion is oriented parallel or inclined obliquely to the mold base (Fig 10, 11a),
Einert in view of Ilievski does not teach wherein in the second position the first portion is spaced further apart from the mold base than in the first position.
However, Einert teaches that the mold elements 65, 70 are reversibly deformed out of a closed position ([0212]) top remove the molded article.
In the same field of endeavor regarding elastic molds, Fujikawa teaches an elastic mold having a mold base wherein in the second position the first portion is spaced further apart from the mold base than in the first position for opening an elastic mold to remove a molded article (Fig 4: mold 13, mold 18; ln 62-71).
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 substituted the inward opening as taught by Einert in view of Ilievski with the outward opening as taught by Fujikawa and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since Einert and Fujikawa teaches opening of an elastic mold to remove the molded articles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 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
Prosecution Insights