DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on May 07, 2026 is being acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species C encomssing claims 6-7 with traverse of in the reply filed on May 07, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all it would not be an undue burden for the examiner to search. This is not found persuasive because
Applicant’s arguments based on search burden as mention would not be considered proper because restriction is based on PCT unity of invention, thefore, incorrect or inappropriate arguments are presented.
And under PCT rule 13.1, restriction requirement clearly mentions why restriction is proper based on lacking special technical features (see explanation in the context of prior art in the restriction requirement) in view of prior art mentioned (see further MPEP PCT Rule). The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. A "special technical feature" in the context of prior art refers to a specific technical aspect of an invention that represents a unique contribution over existing technology, meaning it is not found in the prior art and defines what makes the invention novel and potentially patentable; It appears that applicant defining all features as common features, if all features as common features, then no novelty exists, and the claim or invention is unpatentable.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is thefore made final.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter or species.
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-AlA) 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.
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.
(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) 6-7are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/ (a)(2) (whichever apply)as being anticipated by Hiroyuki et al. (WO2021199983, hereinafter Hiroyuki), Hagi et al. (US20160148722, hereinafter Hagi), or Tohyama et al. (US20210134494, herein referred to as Tohyama)
Rejection of claims 6, Hiroyuki (figures 1-6 of Hiroyuki) or Hagi (figures 1-2 of Hagi) or Tohyama (figures 4A or 5 and paragraphs 0019 ,0024, and 0027) discloses a wire harness comprising:
a shielded wire having a core wire (a core wire 24 in Hiroyuki; a core wire 11 in Hagi; a core wire 2 in Tohyama),
an insulating coating covering an outer periphery of the core wire (an insulating coating 26 in Hiroyuki; an insulating coating on 11 in Hagi; an insulating coating 12 in Tohyama), and
a braid covering an outer periphery of the insulating coating (a braided wire 20in Hiroyuki; a braided wire 12 in Hagi; a braided conductor 20 in Tohyama);
a housing covering an outer periphery of the braid (38 or 38,50 in Hiroyuki; 17 or 17,19 in Hagi; a grommet 40 in Tohyama ); and
a water-stop cover that fills a mesh of the braid and is located between the housing and the insulating coating; wherein the water stop cover is the elastic tube and is held between the housing and the resin filler (36 in Hiroyuki, and specification states “the water blocking agent 36, for example, silicone resin, silicone rubber, grease, butyl rubber…having viscosity and elasticity are used”; see 18 in figures of Hagi and see paragraph 0018 of Hagi; Or see 51-52 or 52 in figures of Tohyama and see paragraphs 0019 ,0024, and 0027 of Tohyama),
Rejection of claim 7, Hiroyuki or Hagi or Tohyama discloses the wire harness according to wherein an inner side of the water-stop cover in a radial direction is adhered to the insulating coating, and an outer side of the water-stop cover in the radial direction is flatly pressed and in intimate contact with the housing. (see figures 1-6 of Hiroyuki; see figures 1-2 of Hagi; see 51-52 or 522 in the figures of Tohyama and see paragraphs 0019 ,0024, and 0027 of Tohyama ).
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various wire harness bracket assemblies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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
Prosecution Insights