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 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komiya et al. (US 7017328 hereinafter Komiya).
In regards to claim 1, Komiya discloses “A wire harness organizer structure (abstract), comprising a hinge and a wire harness configured for electrical conduction (Fig. 1 (shows a hinge structure and wire)); wherein the hinge is bendable ( Page 3, Line 47-64) in a specified plane and has a hollow portion communicating a first end of the hinge to a second end of the hinge (Fig. 1 (shown)), and the wire harness runs through the hollow portion (Fig. 1 (shown)).”
In regards to claim 2, Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 1, wherein the first end of the hinge is a fixed end, the second end of the hinge is a moving end (Col. 1, Lines 29-44), and a fixed portion is arranged at a position, at a specified length from the first end, of the hinge (Col.4,Lines 57-61, where the length is determined by the application), the fixed portion being immovable relative to the first end; wherein a portion, between the fixed portion and the first end, of the hinge is a first portion, a portion, between the fixed portion and the second end, of the hinge is a second portion, and the fixed portion is configured to define the second portion to be bent in the specified plane, the specified plane being parallel to a movement direction of the second end of the hinge (Col. 1, Lines 8-16 and 29-44).”
In regards to claim 8, Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 2, wherein the hinge comprises a plurality of hinge blocks (Fig. 1 (10) successively connected in series, each of the hinge blocks comprising a first hinge sub-block (Fig. 1 (11b)) and a second hinge sub-block (Fig. 1 (11a)) connected as one; wherein in any adjacent three of the hinge blocks, the first hinge sub-block of the hinge block in the middle and the second hinge sub-block of one of the adjacent three hinge blocks adjacent to the hinge block in the middle are rotatably connected to each other in the specified plane (Fig. 1 (shows 3 sub-blocks together)), and the second hinge sub-block of the hinge block in the middle and the first hinge subblock of the other hinge block adjacent to the hinge block in the middle are rotatably connected to each other in the specified plane (Col. 1, Lines 8-16 and 29-44).”
In regards to claim 9, Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer according to claim 8, wherein for each of the hinge blocks, a rotation shaft portion is arranged on one of the first hinge sub-block and the second hinge sub-block (Fig. 1 (11c), Col. 4 Lines 14-22), and a rotation shaft hole is arranged in the other of the first hinge sub-block and the second hinge sub-block (Fig. 1 (11d) Col. 4 Lines 14-22), the rotation shaft portion being rotatably connected to the corresponding rotation shaft hole and an axis of the rotation shaft portion being perpendicular to the specified plane (Col. 4 Lines 14-22).”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya et al. (US 7017328 hereinafter Komiya).
In regards to claim 7, Komiya discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the hinge ranges from 150 mm to 180 mm. However Komiya does disclose Col.4,Lines 57-61, where the length is determined by the application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the length in a range of 150mm to 180 mm dependent on the application use, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Therefore, claim 7 is disclosed.
In regards to claim 10, Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 9”, but does not directly disclose “wherein for each of the hinge blocks, a first limiting portion is arranged on one of the first hinge sub-block and the second hinge sub-block, and a second limiting portion is arranged on the other of the first hinge sub-block and the second hinge sub-block, wherein the first limiting portion cooperates with the corresponding second limiting portion to define a maximum angular extent to which adjacent two of the hinge blocks rotate about the axis of the rotation shaft portion in the specified plane.”
However, Komiya discloses in Fig. 1 by design, that plates 12 and 13 would prevent llb top and bottom from moving more than the angles formed on llb. Therefore, the instant invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 12,a modified Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 10”, but does not directly disclose “wherein the first limiting portion is a first limiting surface on one of the first hinge sub-block and the second hinge sub-block, and the second limiting portion is a second limiting surface on the other of the first hinge sub-block and the second hinge sub-block.”
However, Komiya discloses in Fig. 1 by design, that plates 12 and 13 (limiting surfaces) would prevent llb top and bottom from moving more than the angles formed on llb. Therefore, the instant invention is disclosed.
In regards to claim 13,a modified Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 10, wherein for each of the hinge blocks, the first hinge sub-block comprises two first walls opposite to each other along a direction parallel to the axis of the rotation shaft portion (Fig. 1 (two 11a shown on opposite sides)), and the second hinge sub-block comprises two second walls opposite to each other along the direction parallel to the axis of the rotation shaft portion (Fig.1 (two 11b shown on opposite sides)), the two first walls being respectively connected as one to the two second walls; and each of the hinge blocks further comprises two connection portions connected between the two first walls and the two second walls (Fig. 1 (12 and 13 holds 11a and 11b together)), and the hollow portion (Fig. 1 (R )) is formed between the two connection portions, the two first walls, and the two second walls.”
In regards to claim 14,a modified Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 13, The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 13, wherein for each of the hinge blocks, a surface, going away from the other first wall, of one of the first walls is a first surface (Fig. 1 (11b)), and a surface, going away from the other second wall, of one of the second walls is a second surface (Fig. 1 (11a)), wherein the second surface of one of the second walls protrudes Fig. 1 (shown)), relative to the first surface of the first wall connected as one to the second wall, along a direction away from the first surface; in any adjacent two of the hinge blocks, the second surface of the second wall of one of the hinge blocks is flush with the second surface of the second wall of the other hinge block; and the rotation shaft hole (Fig. 1 (11d)) is a through-hole opened through the second wall along a direction of the axis of the rotation shaft portion, and the rotation shaft portion is a convex portion on the first surface of the first wall (Fig. 1 (shown)).”
In regards to claim 15,a modified Komiya discloses “The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 14, wherein each of the second walls has an arc-shaped concave surface and an arc-shaped convex surface that are going away from each other, wherein in any adjacent two of the hinge blocks, the arc-shaped concave surface of the second wall of one of the hinge blocks cooperates with the arc-shaped convex surface of the second wall of the other hinge block (Fig. 1 (shown)).”
In regards to claim 16,a modified Komiya discloses “The harness organizer structure according to claim 13, wherein for each of the hinge blocks Fig. 1 (10)), a surface, going away from the other first wall, of one of the first walls is a first surface (Fig. 1 (11a)), and a surface, going away from the other second wall, of one of the second walls is a second surface (Fig. 1 (11b)), wherein the first surface of one of the first walls protrudes, relative to the second surface of the second wall connected as one to the first wall, along a direction away from the second surface; in any adjacent two of the hinge blocks (Fig. 1 (shown)), the first surface of the first wall of one of the hinge blocks is flush with the first surface of the first wall of the other hinge block; and the rotation shaft hole (Fig. 1 (11d)) is a through-hole opened through the first wall along a direction of the axis of the rotation shaft portion, and the rotation shaft portion is a convex portion on the second surface of the second wall (Fig. 1).”
In regards to claim 17,a modified Komiya discloses” The wire harness organizer structure according to claim 16, wherein each of the first walls has an arc-shaped concave surface and an arc-shaped convex surface that are going away from each other, wherein in any adjacent two of the hinge blocks, the arc-shaped concave surface of the first wall of one of the hinge blocks cooperates with the arc-shaped convex surface of the first wall of the other hinge block (Fig. 1 (shown)).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F MCALLISTER whose telephone number is (571)272-2453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL F MCALLISTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights