DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on November 07, 2025 is being acknowledged.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Inao et al. (US20150114680, herein referred to as Inao) and Hill et al. (US7456361, herein referred to as Hill), and additionally, or alternatively Yanazawa et al. (US20200203938, herin referred to as Yanazawa).
Rejection of claim 1, Inao discloses a wire harness (figures 1-5 Inao) of comprising:
a wire (conducting path 15 includes a first conducting path 18 positioned in the center of the high-voltage coaxial composite conducting path 15 and having a circular cross-section, and a first insulator 19 covering the outer circumference of the first conducting path 18 ); an exterior tube that is tubular and covers an outer circumference of the wire; and wherein the exterior tube includes a linear portion, and a corrugated portion that is continuous from the linear portion, the corrugated portion has a higher in bendability to the linear portion (the exterior member 16 (the wire harness exterior member) is a tube for housing and protecting the high-voltage coaxial composite conducting path 15, and includes a flexible tube portion 23 and an inflexible tube portion 24),
a first route restrictor (17b in figure 4C) that is attached to an outer circumference of the exterior tube, and is configured to restrict a route of the exterior tube,
the first route restrictor (17b in figure 4C) includes: a first body that covers part of outer circumference of the exterior tube in a circumferential direction, and the first route restrictor is attached to the corrugated portion (see figure 4C);
PNG
media_image1.png
318
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an entire body of the first route restrictor is attached to the corrugated portion (clamp A in above figure with respect to figure 4C wherein entire body of the first route restrictor on the corrugated portion) and is spaced from the linear portion such that the entire body is spaced away from the linear portion (see an entire body of claimp A spaced from portion of linear portion between A and B).
Inao fail to disclose a first insertion hole that is formed by two ends of the first body portion in the circumferential direction, and extends in a length direction of the first route restrictor over an entire length of the first route restrictor, the first insertion hole being an opening into which the exterior tube is insertable.
Hill discloses a first insertion hole that is formed by two ends of the first body portion in the circumferential direction, and extends in a length direction of the first route restrictor over an entire length of the first route restrictor, the first insertion hole being an opening into which the exterior tube is insertable (see figures 1 and 5 of Hill).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of the Inoa to have the route restrictor as taught by Hill so that the electrical wiring in any facility must be insulated and secured to the structure in such a way that the electrical current is controlled and prevented from harming people and property; and/or As can be appreciated, especially with commercial construction, wherein it is best to utilize mechanisms that are quick and easy to use, to minimize the time and expense of wiring a facility, furthermore as can also be appreciated, mounting structures that only require one hand to use can be very beneficial since the other hand can be utilized to guide the cable and/or to maintain one's balance.
Additionally, or alternatively, Yanazawa discloses an entire body of the first route restrictor is attached to the corrugated portion (see figure 2 wherein claimp 26 entirely on the corrugated portion) and is spaced from the linear portion such that the entire body is spaced away from the linear portion (see an entire body of claimp 26 spaced from portion of linear portion 28).
Rejection of claim 2, Inao in view of Hill and Yanazawa disclose the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the first body is major arc-shaped (see the figures of Hill).
Rejection of claim 3, Inao in view of Hill disclose the wire harness according to claim 2, but fails to disclose that wherein the first route restrictor has first projections that respectively project toward the exterior tube from inner surfaces of the two ends of the first body portion in the circumferential direction, and are in contact with an outer surface of the exterior tube.
Examiner makes official notice that the first route restrictor has first projections at free ends of the route restrictor or regulator so that projections increase contact pressure between the circular or curved surface of first route restrictor and outer surface of cable (wire with sheath or exterior member) in order to securely keep cable in place or position as well as diameter of an insertion hole would be reduced which also further help securely keep cable in place or position.
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of the Inoa in view of Hill to have Protrusion in the route restrictor as for the reason given above.
Rejection of claim 7, Inao in view of Hill and Yanazawa disclose the wire harness according to claim 1, further comprising: a second route restrictor that is attached to an outer circumference of the linear portion, and is configured to restrict a route of the linear portion (17a in figure 5 of Inao).
Rejection of claim 8, Inao in view of Hill and Yanazawa disclose the wire harness according to claim 7, wherein the linear portion has an outer diameter that is smaller than an outer diameter of the corrugated portion (see the figures of Inao, also see figure 2 of Yanazawa).
Rejection of claim 9, Inao in view of Hill and Yanazawa disclose the wire harness according to claim 8, wherein the second route restrictor has a length that is shorter than a length of the linear portion (see 17a in figure 5 of Inao).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Inao and Hill, Yanazawa, and further in view of Inao et al. (US20150136483, herein referred to as Inao2015).
Rejection of claim 10, Inao in view of Hill and Yanazawa disclose the wire harness according to claim 9, but fail to disclose the second route restrictor attached to the linear portion has an outer diameter that is smaller than or equal to the outer diameter of the corrugated portion.
Inoa2015 discloses the second route restrictor attached to the linear portion has an outer diameter that is smaller than or equal to the outer diameter of the corrugated portion
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of the Inoa in view of Hill and Yanazawa to have diameter as taught by Inao so that the exterior member is formed into a shape to have an inner diameter necessary for the insertion of the electrical pathway , a length necessary to accommodate the hi electrical pathway, and a thickness necessary to protect the high voltage electrical pathway; and/or to reduce manufacturing cost by having diameter for linear and corrugated portions which simply and conveniently combine and manufacture.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Inao and Hill, Yanazawa, and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (US20190351846, herein referred to as Matsuyama).
Rejection of claim 11, Inao in view of Hill and Yanazawa disclose the wire harness according to claim 7, but fail to disclose wherein the second route restrictor includes:
a second body that covers part of the outer circumference of the linear portion in the circumferential direction; and
a second insertion hole that is formed by two ends of the second body in the circumferential direction, and extends in a length direction of the second route restrictor over an entire length of the second route restrictor, the second insertion hole being an opening into which the linear portion is insertable, and
the second body portion is major arc-shaped.
Matsuyama discloses wherein the second route restrictor includes:
a second body (a body part 31, see figures 1 and 9 of Matsuyama) that covers part of the outer circumference of the linear portion (a portion of linear pipe 20) in the circumferential direction; and
a second insertion hole that is formed by two ends of the second body in the circumferential direction (an insertion hole of 31), and extends in a length direction of the second route restrictor over an entire length of the second route restrictor, the second insertion hole being an opening into which the linear portion is insertable (see the figures), and
the second body portion is major arc-shaped (see the figures).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of the Inoa in view of Hill and Yanazawa to have the route restrictor on linear portion as taught by Matsuyama so that mounting structures that only require one hand to use can be very beneficial since the other hand can be utilized to guide the cable and/or to maintain one's balance, and to ensure reliability when connecting a protector to a pipe. as well regulate path of the wire as needs of user without damage.
Rejection of claim 12, Inao in view of Hill, Yanazawa, and Matsuyama disclose the wire harness according to claim 11, wherein the second route restrictor has second projections that respectively project toward the linear portion from inner surfaces of the two ends of the second body portion in the circumferential direction, and are in contact with an outer surface of the linear portion (See 35 in figure 1, 5 and 9 of Inoa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in term of Inao in view of Hill and arguments moot in term of Yamazawa.
Response to arguments regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument are based on corrugated portion 23 with restrictor 28 and linear portion 24, wherein linear portion 24 is not spaced away from restrictor 28 which is correct in figures 4A-4C; however, in figure 5 wherein corrugated portion has two linear portions, one on each end; and wherein one of the two linear portions as mentioned in rejection under USC 103 above is spaced from the entire body of the clamp A placed on corrugated portion. Additionally, new reference Yamazawa also discloses the amended limitation.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PAGHADAL whose telephone number is (571)272-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM, Monday - Thursday.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571)272-2342. 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.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847