DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 5, 8, 13, 15, 20-22, 26-32, 34-35, 38-43, 45 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, 23-25, 33, 36-37, 44 are pending and addressed below. It is noted that the amended claims of 10/13/2025 are being examined because the other two claim sets on 10/13/2025 and 12/16/2025 are unamended claims.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
Documents listed but not submitted are not considered and lined through.
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:
at least two second robotic units, and wherein a first second robotic unit from said at least two second robotic units is positioned on a front side of said electrical panel while a second second robotic unit from said at least two second robotic units is positioned on a back side of said electrical panel (see claim 6);
wherein said wire manipulation robotic unit comprises two or more grippers, each configured to manipulate a distal end of a wire; and wherein each of said two or more grippers is configured for one or more of: a. rotate along a longitudinal axis of a gripper; b. move in a Cartesian fashion; c. move independently from other grippers; d. move up and down in relation to said electrical panel; e. move from a back side of said electrical panel to a front side of said electrical panel; f. interact with at least one of said one or more of a first robotic unit; g. interact with at least one of said one or more of a second robotic unit positioned on a front side of said electrical panel (see claim 25);
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
first robotic unit, second robotic unit in claim 1;
wire preparation unit in claims 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recited ‘viceversa”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim version on 12/16/2025 is objected to because it is the last version submitted but has improper statuses and/or markings. The amendment to the claims filed on 12/16/2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because of statuses and/or markings. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites “further comprising at least two second robotic units”. It is not clear if these at least two second robotic units are part of the previously introduced “one or more of a second robot unit” in claim 1, and would have the same limiting effect of the previously introduced “one or more of a second robot unit” and corresponding claim features.
All dependent claims of this/these claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-19, 24, 33, 37-37, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by BÄCHLER (US 20200388997) .
Regarding claim 1, BÄCHLER teaches:
An automated robotic wiring system configured for performing a wiring process including wiring one or more wires in an electrical panel, the system comprising:
a. one or more of a first robotic unit configured for inserting an end of a wire into an electrical component;
b. one or more of a second robotic unit configured for positioning said wire along a path within said electrical panel;
wherein said first robotic unit and said second robotic unit collaborate with each other during said wiring process
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 3, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said one or more of a first robotic unit is positioned on a front side of said electrical panel (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 4, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said one or more of a second robotic unit is positioned on a same side like said one or more of a first robotic unit or on a back side of said electrical panel (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 7, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said first robotic unit is a robotic arm comprising an end effector configured to engage said wire (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 9, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said second robotic unit is a wire laying and positioning robotic unit (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 10, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said wire laying and positioning robotic unit, comprises:
a. a robotic manipulator configured to provide movement to a positioning head in one or more directions;
b. a positioning head, comprising one or more wire manipulating mechanisms
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 11, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein one of said one or more wire manipulating mechanisms comprises a positioning neck comprising one or more wire moving mechanisms; (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 14, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said positioning head comprises an inclination mechanism configured to tilt said positioning head to an angle from 0 degrees to 90 degrees;
b. a positioning head, comprising one or more wire manipulating mechanisms
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
Regarding claim 16, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said positioning head comprises a rotation mechanism configured to rotate said positioning head (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
Regarding claim 18, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said one or more directions provided by said robotic manipulator are selected from the group consisting of left-right, forward-backward and up-down (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
Regarding claim 19, BÄCHLER teaches:
one or more of:
a. sensors configured to monitor the movement of a wire within said positioning heads
b. a wire securing actuator configured to control a speed which a wire is being released;
c. an encoder configured for measuring how much of a wire has been released;
d. a wire channel configured for containing a wire while said wire is being released
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], discussed “cable duct”)
Regarding claim 24, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said second robotic unit is a wire manipulation robotic unit positioned behind said electrical panel (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
Regarding claim 33, BÄCHLER teaches:
one or more of:
a. a wire preparation unit configured for preparing one or more wires to be used in said wiring process;
b. an openable loading table configured to receive said electrical panel;
c. one or more sensors configured to monitor said wiring process
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
Regarding claim 36, BÄCHLER teaches:
A method of performing a wiring process of an electrical panel by an automated robotic wiring system, comprising:
a. inserting a first end of a wire into a first electrical component by means of one or more of a first robotic unit;
b. positioning said wire along a path by means of one or more of a second robotic unit;
c. inserting a second end of a wire into a second electrical component by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067]; fig. 2 shows at least three components 5, [0067] discussed “after step 6, the two robots 2 can extract another cable 7 from the cable sequence 3 and the procedure can accordingly start again from the first step”, the next component 5 the first/left robot feeds cable to read on second electrical component)
Regarding claim 37, BÄCHLER teaches:
one or more of:
a. positioning said wire within said one or more of a second robotic unit before said inserting a first end of a wire;
b. picking up, by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit, said first end of said wire from a distal end of said one or more of a second robotic unit after said positioning said wire within said one or more of a second robotic unit;
c. picking up, by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit, said second end of said wire from a distal end of said one or more of a second robotic unit after said positioning said wire along said path
d. inclining a part of said one or more of a second robotic unit to facilitate said picking up;
e. receiving wiring information data comprising a plurality of tasks for said one or more of a first robotic unit and said one or more of a second robotic unit to be performed during said wiring process;
f. performing said plurality of tasks according to said wiring information data; wherein said plurality of tasks are characterized by instructing said one or more of a first robotic unit and said one or more of a second robotic unit to collaborate with each other during said a wiring process;
g. picking up, by said one or more of a first robotic unit, a dedicated tool for a task from said plurality of tasks according to said wiring information data;
h. interchanging tools when a specific task from said plurality of tasks requires a different tool from said picked up tool;
i. passing one or both distal ends of a wire from one side of said electrical panel to another side of said electrical panel.
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 44, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said positioning said wire along a path comprises leaving a wire on a back side of an electrical panel
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
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) 14, 36, 37, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BÄCHLER (US 20200388997) .
Regarding claim 14, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said positioning head comprises an inclination mechanism configured to tilt said positioning head to an angle from 0 degrees to 90 degrees;
b. a positioning head, comprising one or more wire manipulating mechanisms
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
In addition and in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of BÄCHLER with an angle from 0 degrees to 90 degrees because the angles shown in BÄCHLER looks to be of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 36, BÄCHLER teaches:
A method of performing a wiring process of an electrical panel by an automated robotic wiring system, comprising:
a. inserting a first end of a wire into a first electrical component by means of one or more of a first robotic unit;
b. positioning said wire along a path by means of one or more of a second robotic unit;
c. inserting a second end of a wire into a second electrical component by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire/cable to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067]; fig. 2 shows at least three components 5, [0067] discussed “after step 6, the two robots 2 can extract another cable 7 from the cable sequence 3 and the procedure can accordingly start again from the first step”, the next component 5 the first/left robot feeds cable to read on second electrical component)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of BÄCHLER with inserting a first end of a wire into a first electrical component by means of one or more of a first robotic unit, and inserting a second end of a wire into a second electrical component by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2141 KSR rationale E. In this case, as the prior art already teaches there are at least three components 5, one robot 2 insert a wire end into one component 5 and starts again, then it is obvious that when the one robot 2 starts again, the component 5 that it’ll insert a wire end into is going to be either a different component 5, or the same component 5
Regarding claim 37, BÄCHLER teaches:
one or more of:
a. positioning said wire within said one or more of a second robotic unit before said inserting a first end of a wire;
b. picking up, by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit, said first end of said wire from a distal end of said one or more of a second robotic unit after said positioning said wire within said one or more of a second robotic unit;
c. picking up, by means of said one or more of a first robotic unit, said second end of said wire from a distal end of said one or more of a second robotic unit after said positioning said wire along said path
d. inclining a part of said one or more of a second robotic unit to facilitate said picking up;
e. receiving wiring information data comprising a plurality of tasks for said one or more of a first robotic unit and said one or more of a second robotic unit to be performed during said wiring process;
f. performing said plurality of tasks according to said wiring information data; wherein said plurality of tasks are characterized by instructing said one or more of a first robotic unit and said one or more of a second robotic unit to collaborate with each other during said a wiring process;
g. picking up, by said one or more of a first robotic unit, a dedicated tool for a task from said plurality of tasks according to said wiring information data;
h. interchanging tools when a specific task from said plurality of tasks requires a different tool from said picked up tool;
i. passing one or both distal ends of a wire from one side of said electrical panel to another side of said electrical panel.
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Regarding claim 44, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said positioning said wire along a path comprises leaving a wire on a back side of an electrical panel
(at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067])
Claim(s) 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BÄCHLER (US 20200388997) as applied to claims 10, 11 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 20210183541).
Regarding claim 12, BÄCHLER does not explicitly teach:
wherein said one or more wire moving mechanisms are one or more belts and/or one or more rollers;
However, Mitchell et al. teaches:
wherein said one or more wire moving mechanisms are one or more belts and/or one or more rollers (at least [0137]-[0143] discussed rollers, gantry) for routing, dispensing wire and carry manipulator arm ([0137]-[0143]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of BÄCHLER with wherein said one or more wire moving mechanisms are one or more belts and/or one or more rollers as taught by Mitchell et al. for routing, dispensing wire and carry manipulator arm
Regarding claim 17, BÄCHLER teaches:
wherein said robotic manipulator is one or more of a robotic arm (at least figs. 1-3, [0004]-[0039] [0047]-[0067] discussed two robots 2 connect wire to 2 electronic components on a shared workpiece/mounting plate, in particular figs. 1, 3 [0047]-[0056] [0061]-[0067], fig. 3 showed the robots 2 can bend/rotate end effector 4 at angles between 0 and 90 deg)
BÄCHLER does not explicitly teach:
and a robotic gantry;
However, Mitchell et al. teaches:
and a robotic gantry (at least [0137]-[0143] discussed rollers, gantry) for routing, dispensing wire and carry manipulator arm ([0137]-[0143]);;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of BÄCHLER with a robotic gantry as taught by Mitchell et al. for routing, dispensing wire and carry manipulator arm
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BÄCHLER (US 20200388997) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of MUKOU et al. (US 20200290206).
Regarding claim 25, BÄCHLER does not explicitly teach:
wherein said wire manipulation robotic unit comprises two or more grippers, each configured to manipulate a distal end of a wire; and wherein each of said two or more grippers is configured for one or more of: a. rotate along a longitudinal axis of a gripper; b. move in a Cartesian fashion; c. move independently from other grippers; d. move up and down in relation to said electrical panel; e. move from a back side of said electrical panel to a front side of said electrical panel; f. interact with at least one of said one or more of a first robotic unit; g. interact with at least one of said one or more of a second robotic unit positioned on a front side of said electrical panel
However, MUKOU et al. teaches:
wherein said wire manipulation robotic unit comprises two or more grippers, each configured to manipulate a distal end of a wire; and wherein each of said two or more grippers is configured for one or more of: a. rotate along a longitudinal axis of a gripper; b. move in a Cartesian fashion; c. move independently from other grippers; d. move up and down in relation to said electrical panel; e. move from a back side of said electrical panel to a front side of said electrical panel; f. interact with at least one of said one or more of a first robotic unit; g. interact with at least one of said one or more of a second robotic unit positioned on a front side of said electrical panel
(at least figs. 3-7 [0040]-[0069] discussed three grasping mechanisms 51a, 51b and 51c have the same configuration; grasping mechanism 51a and “chuck parts 61 and 62 of the present embodiment are arranged so as to grasp the wire member 82”, grasping mechanism 51a has its own drive device 65 for driving members constituting the grasping mechanism 51a, ”drive device 65 moves the claws 61a and 62a so that the chuck parts 61 and 62 can grasp and release the wire member 82”; thus at least grippers in grasping mechanism 51a move independently from grippers of other grasping mechanisms) to grasp and release the wire member ([0040]-[0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of BÄCHLER with wherein said wire manipulation robotic unit comprises two or more grippers, each configured to manipulate a distal end of a wire; and wherein each of said two or more grippers is configured for one or more of: a. rotate along a longitudinal axis of a gripper; b. move in a Cartesian fashion; c. move independently from other grippers; d. move up and down in relation to said electrical panel; e. move from a back side of said electrical panel to a front side of said electrical panel; f. interact with at least one of said one or more of a first robotic unit; g. interact with at least one of said one or more of a second robotic unit positioned on a front side of said electrical panel as taught by MUKOU et al. to grasp and release the wire member
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CARROLO et al. (US 20230230729) discussed robot cell and wiring harness assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
