DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Rejection of claim 8, the limitation “the tape has a protection function equivalent to that in a case where the electric wire is covered with a tube, by being wound around the electric wire to overlap at least half of the tape in a width direction thereof.” has enablement issue.
It is not clear in claims that what kind of protection functionality tape has and how it makes equivalent to tube and also what standard method used to compare functionality of the two in specification; additionally, specification fails to discloses how warping tapes made of unknown material, thickness, and strength similar to tube with unknown material, thickness, and strength are similar in unknown protection function. No clear indication is given in the specification so that ordinary skill in the art understand as well as enable.
Therefore, claim 8 has enablement issue.
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 8 is 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.
Rejection of claim 8, the limitation “the tape has a protection function equivalent to that in a case where the electric wire is covered with a tube, by being wound around the electric wire to overlap at least half of the tape in a width direction thereof.” is indefinite or unclear.
It is not clear in claims that what kind of protection functionality tape has and how it makes equivalent to tube and also what standard method used to compare functionality of the two in specification; additionally, specification fails to discloses how warping tapes made of unknown material, thickness, and strength similar to tube with unknown material, thickness, and strength are similar in unknown protection function. No clear indication is given in the specification so that ordinary skill in the art understand as well as has enablement issue.
Furthermore, Term “a width direction” referred to what a with direction of protector member or the electric wire (diameter in any direction) or a tape winded tube shaped structure or a tape defines direction directions. Term “thereof” referred to what tape or the electric wire.
Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and unclear.
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.
Note: Rejection of claims under USC 102 and 103 below is given to advance prosecution, however, a proper clarification or amendment is required under rejection of USC 112 above to consider the rejection of USC 102 and 103 below.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Hidehiro et al. (WO2013012076, hereinafter referred to as Hidehiro) or Arakava et al. (WO2022264771 hereinafter referred to as Arakava).
Rejection of claim 1, Hidehiro or Arakava discloses a wire harness (figures 3-6 of Hidehiro; or figures 3-4 of Arakava) comprising:
a protective member protect an electric wire routed in a vehicle, wherein the protective member is constituted by a protector and a tape (see figures 3-6 of Hidehiro; or see figure 3-5 of Arakava wherein 31 or 32 is tape and 22 is protector, and wire 21 )
a surrounding of the electric wire is covered with at least one of the protector and the tape of the protective member (see the figures of Hidehero; or see figures of Arakava),
the tape has a first winding wound around the electric wire and the protector and a second winding wound around the electric wire and the protector the first winding has a width in a width direction of the tape, and the second winding overlaps at least half of the tape first winding and exposes a portion of the first winding in the width direction of the tape (see windings in figures 3-6 of Hidehero and specification of Hidehero mentions to have tape with half wrapping; or see windings of 31 in figure 3 or see figures 4-5 and specification mentions that “The predetermined length W2 in this embodiment is half the width W1 of the tape member 32 (W2=1/2×W1). Such a winding method in which the halves in the width direction are overlapped is called "half-wrapped winding" of Arakava);
(for claim 10) the protective member has a first end and a second end spaced away from the first end in an extending direction of the electric wire, the tape extends in the extending direction from a first location on the protective member to a second location on the protective member, the first location is spaced away from the first end and the second end in the extending direction, the second location is spaced away from first end and the second end in the extending direction, and the first end and the second end of the protective member are exposed (see tape in figure 6 of Hidehero; or see tape in middle portion away from both ends of protector 22 in Arakava).
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 1-2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpateable over Takahiko (JP2009077517) or Takashi (JPH07322441A) in view of Hidehiro or Arakava.
Rejection of claims 1-2, Takahiko or Takashi discloses a wire harness (figures 6 of Takahiko; or figure 1-5 of Takashi) comprising:
a protective member protects an electric wire routed in a vehicle, wherein the protective member is constituted by a protector and a tape (see wire as W/H, tape as T and a protector 10 of Takahiko; or see figures 1-5 of Takashi wherein 7 is tape, 10 is wire, and 1 is protector)
a surrounding of the electric wire is covered with at least one of the protector and the tape of the protective member (see the figures of Takahiko; or see figures of Takashi),
the tape has a first winding wound around the electric wire and the protector and a second winding wound around the electric wire and the protector , the first winding has a width in a width direction of the tape, and the second winding overlaps of the tape first winding and exposes a portion of the first winding in the width direction of the tape (see windings in the figures of the Takahiko; or see windings in the figures of the Takashi);
wherein the protector has an L-shaped part constituted by two flat plate portions in a vertical cross section relative to an extending direction of the electric wire, and the electric wire is covered with the tape at least at one of the flat plate portions extending in the extending direction of the electric wire (see figures of Takahiko; or see figure of Takashi).
Takahiko or Takashi fails to disclose second winding overlaps at least half of the tape first winding and exposes a portion of the first winding in the width direction of the tape.
Hidehiro or Arakava discloses second winding overlaps at least half of the tape first winding and exposes a portion of the first winding in the width direction of the tape (see rejection of claim 1 by Hidehiro or Arakava under USC 102).
It would have been an obvious to have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a wire harness of Ito to have the tape with second winding on the first winding as taught by Hidehiro or Arakava because this creates a consistent layer of coverage around the wires while preventing gaps that could allow chafing, vibration damage, or moisture intrusion. It increases the overall durability of the harness without adding excessive bulk in automotive, aerospace, and electronics wire harnesses. In short, it provides uniform coverage and protection, controlled thickness, and/or professional appearance.
Rejection of claim 9, claim 9 is rejected by Takahiko or Takashi in view of Hidehiro or Arakava (as explained in the rejection of claim 1-2).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al. (WO2016114246, hereinafter referred to as Jun) in view of Takashi (JP2008092614, herein referred to as Takashi1)
Rejection of claim 1, Jun discloses a wire harness (figure 1 of Jun) comprising:
a protective member protect an electric wire routed in a vehicle, wherein the protective member is constituted by a protector and a tape (see wire 20; one of tape 6, and a protector 1 ).
the protector is L-shpaed part consisting of two flat plate portions in a vertical cross section relative to an extending direction of the electric wire (see shape of protector 1),
a surrounding of the electric wire is covered with at least one of the protector and the tape of the protective member (see figures of Jun),
Jun fails to disclose the tape has a protection function equivalent to that in a case where the electric wire is covered with a tube, by being wound around the electric wire to overlap at least half of the tape in a width direction thereof.
Takashi1 discloses the tape has a protection function equivalent to that in a case where the electric wire is covered with a tube, by being wound around the electric wire to overlap at least half of the tape in a width direction thereof (see figures 1 and 5 wherein tape windings overlapping at the same location).
It would have been an obvious to have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a wire harness of Ito to have the Tape with windings as taught by Takashi1 because it increases thickness of tapes to reinforce tape portion so that it can not be easily be broken, damaged, or removed as to secure wires with protector.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent arts in the present case.
Communication
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.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PARESH PAGHADAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights