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
Claim 11 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected patentably distinct invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that: “the claimed inventions share common technical features and contribute to a single general inventive concept. These arguments are not found persuasive because the different groups have been shown to have distinct features, despite any overlap in some of the subject matter. Moreover, the Applicant’s own specification discloses that the inventions of groups I and II are directed to different embodiments. Additionally, the argument regarding technical features is not really germane, as the instant Application is not a 371 of a PCT Application and therefore is not subject to Unity of Invention restriction practices. In U.S. restriction practice, even though there may be overlap in some of the subject matter of inventions, they can still be deemed distinct if they also disclose limitations which are distinct between the inventions. Those distinct features were properly demonstrated by the Examiner in the restriction requirement and therefore the argument is not compelling. Further, a proper search of the prior art requires review of thousands of prior art references while searching for all of the numerous features of the claimed invention. To search for the additionally noted features of the non-elected group would significantly increase the burden of time for the search to be performed. Accordingly, the Applicant’s arguments are not found to be compelling.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses “a body frame having a window on an inside of the body portion” (line 2; emphasis added); and “a plurality of supporting frames arranged to correspond to the window, each supporting frame comprising a plurality of supporting elements contacting the plurality of wires, and arranged to form n rows (n is a natural number greater than 1) in a width direction of the body frame, wherein the plurality of supporting frames are sequentially arranged from a 1st row to an nth row” (lines 3-6; emphasis added).
The first cited portion is indefinite because there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the body portion” in the claim. It is not clear if this limitation should actually instead refer to “the body frame” or if there is a “body portion” which should have been previously disclosed in the claim and was inadvertently omitted.
The second cited recitation is confusing and difficult to interpret. Specifically, it is not clear whether it is the “plurality of supporting frames”, or the “plurality of supporting elements”, or both, which is/are “arranged to form n rows”. The run-on nature of the cited clause makes it impossible to be sure. Based upon the final two lines of the cited portion of the claim, it seems apparent that the supporting frames are arranged in rows, but the reader still cannot be sure whether the supporting elements are as well. This ambiguity based upon reasonable interpretations of the claims as presented, render the claim indefinite. As best understood, any of the above interpretations is held to be reasonable.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “each of the plurality of supporting elements comprises: a body; and at least one contact member arranged on a lower surface of the body, the lower surface facing the wire, and protruding toward the wire” (lines 1-5; emphasis added). The preamble of claim 1 discloses that the claimed apparatus can be used on “a plurality of wires”, which renders claim 2 even more unclear, as it discloses only one wire which lacks antecedent basis and renders it unclear how the structures of the claimed apparatus (wire jig) are being further defined or limited. Please note that the claims are not directed to the intended capabilities of the wire jig or to a method of using the wire jig. As such, the Applicant is respectfully encouraged to determine the structures of the apparatus and to claim as much, rather than to disclose possible arrangements with other unclaimed products or to disclose methods of using the apparatus in the same claim as the apparatus itself.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e., claims 1-10) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Park et al. (KR-20160064478-A).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a wire jig (30) configured to support a plurality of wires, the wire jig comprising: a body frame (31, 32, 34) having a window (area within the two of 32 and the two of 34) on an inside of the body portion (fig. 7; pg. 5, lines 14-18); and a plurality of supporting frames (at least ten frame groups including rows of 33, 35, 351 and 36 are shown) arranged to correspond (are located adjacent to or within) to the window, each supporting frame comprising a plurality of supporting elements (36) *contacting the plurality of wires, and arranged to form n rows (n is a natural number greater than 1) (fig. 7: 12 rows shown) in a width direction (the direction coincident with the longitudinal direction of 33) of the body frame, wherein the plurality of supporting frames are sequentially arranged from a 1st row to an nth row (figs. 7-11; pg. 5, lines 20-46 and 1-4).
Park does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of supporting elements included in any one of the supporting frames necessarily have a different arrangement from the plurality of supporting elements included in at least one of the other supporting frames. However, given that Park does explicitly disclose that the supporting elements on each frame can be individually moved, connected, removed and rearranged (figs. 7-11; pg. 5, lines 28-43), and that Park also discloses multiple different shapes for the supporting elements. As such, POSITA would have known that it would be a simple and obvious matter to use the adjustability of position and supporting element shape from Park, as it was evidently intended in Park. It would have been a routine matter to use these features in such a manner that the plurality of supporting elements (36) included in any one of the supporting frames (33, 35, 351, 36) would have a different arrangement from the plurality of supporting elements included in at least one of the other supporting frames. POSITA would have known that using the features of Park in this manner would have predictably enabled manufacture of more complex and customizable wire arrays as evidently intended by Park. Moreover, respectfully, it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routine skill in the art.
*NOTE: The currently present and examined claims 1-10 are drawn to an apparatus (i.e., a wire jig) and not to a method. In these claims, the Examiner has given the Applicant the benefit of the doubt that there was no intent to improperly disclose a product and the process of using it in the same claim, which would render the claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Instead these limitations, such as “a plurality of supporting elements contacting the plurality of wires” are being read as best understood to intend something akin to “a plurality of supporting elements [capable of] contacting the plurality of wires. Respectfully, "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Moreover, as cited above, Park discloses the intended functionality of causing the supporting elements to contact a plurality of wires.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of supporting elements comprises: a body (361, 362, 368); and at least one contact member (365) arranged on a lower surface of the body, the lower surface facing the wire, and protruding toward the wire (figs. 9-11; pg. 6, lines 5-24).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 2, wherein a number of supporting elements included in each of the supporting frame of the 1st row and the supporting frame of the nth row is greater than a number of supporting elements included in another supporting frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the number of supporting elements on any given supporting frame, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ (CCPA 1954). As explained above, Park discloses the adjustability and removability of the supporting elements, as such it would have been a routine matter to use those capabilities as intended in a manner such that different rows of supporting elements can have different numbers of supporting elements.
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 2, wherein the plurality of supporting elements included in the supporting frame of the 1st row are in the same number and arrangement as the plurality of supporting elements included in the supporting frame of the nth row (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 4, wherein the plurality of supporting elements included in the supporting frame of each of the 1st row and the supporting frame of the nth row have a smaller number of contact members than the plurality of supporting elements included in each of the other supporting frames. This is an obvious adjustment of numbers of parts in the same manner as claim 3. Accordingly, the rationale for anticipation/obviousness rejection of claim 3 applies to claim 5 as well.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 1, wherein the plurality of supporting frames comprise: a plurality of first supporting frames (any two or more of the cited frames) each of which comprises a plurality of supporting elements (in figs. 7 and 9, there are three of 36 in each frame), each having two contact members (two of 365, including 366, 367); and a plurality of second supporting frames (any other two or more of the cited frames) each of which comprises a plurality of second supporting elements (in figs. 7 and 9, there are three of 36 in each frame), each having two contact members (two of 365, including 366, 367) and arranged to overlap two adjacent first supporting elements included in each of the first supporting frames in a width direction of the body frame (figs, 7, 9 and 11-13; pg. 6, lines 5-48).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 6, wherein the plurality of first supporting frames (fig. 7: first and third rows of 36 to the right of the top one of 34) and the plurality of second supporting frames (fig. 7: second and fourth rows of 36 to the right of the top one of 34) are alternately arranged (all: annotated fig. 7, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of second supporting frames further comprises a pair of third supporting elements (two of 36 at opposing ends) arranged at both ends in a longitudinal direction of the body frame to arrange the plurality of second supporting elements between the pair of third supporting elements, and wherein each of the third supporting elements has one contact member.
Park does not disclose that each of the plurality of second supporting frames further comprises a pair of third supporting elements. However this is a routine matter of selecting additional supporting elements and using them in the manner in which they were originally intended. POSITA would have understood this and known that such inclusion of additional identical supporting elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses the wire jig of claim 1, wherein the plurality of supporting elements are different by row in terms of at least one of a number of the supporting elements, a position of the supporting elements (within each of 351), and a number of contact members included in each of the supporting elements (figs. 11-13), and wherein the contact member is configured to contact each of the wires (pg. 5, lines 28-46 and 1-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Yang (KR-20170076318-A).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Park, however, does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of supporting elements included in at least one supporting frame are arranged zigzag with the plurality of supporting elements included in an adjacent supporting frame in a width direction of the body frame.
Yang teaches that it is well known to provide a similar wire jig configured to support a plurality of wires (fig. 1: all), the wire jig comprising: a body frame (10) having a window (area within the two of 10) on an inside of the body portion (fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 12-17); and a plurality of supporting frames (20) arranged to correspond to the window, each supporting frame comprising a plurality of supporting elements (30) contacting the plurality of wires, and arranged to form n rows (n is a natural number greater than 1) in a width direction of the body frame, wherein the plurality of supporting frames are sequentially arranged from a 1st row to an nth row (figs. 1-2; pg. 3, lines 12-14; pp. 3-4, lines 32-36 and 1-8), and wherein the plurality of supporting elements included in at least one supporting frame are arranged zigzag with the plurality of supporting elements included in an adjacent supporting frame in a width direction of the body frame (pg. 4, lines 30-32; pg. 5, lines 12-14 and 20-22).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Park to incorporate the preferred zig zag arrangement of the supporting elements of Yang. POSITA would have realized that any desired supporting element arrangement scheme can be easily and readily incorporated in the jig of Park to achieve the desired alignment and contact with wires to be connected. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special zig zag arrangement was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old wire jig of Park with the well-known zig zag pattern of Yang. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Chikaki (US 2008/0048007 A1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention (e.g., see figs. 3-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights