DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on or after March 03,2026, is being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on May 06, 2024 and October 09, 2025 have been submitted for consideration by the Office. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Applicants must continue to share prior art references throughout the patent application process. A supplemental IDS must be submitted if prior art is discovered through a foreign patent application or an International Patent Search, or a related application before a prosecution closes.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification in paragraph 0039 disclose “ stiffeners 120, 122 may include one or more hinge mechanisms (not shown) that facilitate harness folding at folding points 106, 108 and/or define a range of motion of segments 162, 164 at folding points 106, 108”.
One of the ordinary skill interprets folding points which is folding portions 106, 108 as less rigid portion than stiffeners 120, 122 which able bend based on specification. However, from specification it is not clear how hinge in either 120 or 122 facilitate harness folding at folding points 106, 108 which are folding portion next to 120 or 122 and different from stiffeners 120 and 122, no clear indication how hinge will work and structured in stiffener is not described . And none of figures shows how hinge in each of stiffeners 120 and 122, and after implementation of hinge, are portions 120 and 122 rigid portions or folding portions?; and what is use of folding portions 106 and 108 which is next to portions 120 and 122 . Specification fails to disclose how exactly hinge would work when it will implemented in the stiffeners, and stiffener portion would be stable or rigid anymore, what is function of folding portions 106, and 108 when you have already hinge which works as folding, none of clarification is given properly. Specification is incomprehensive when considered by the ordinary skill in the art. Mpep clearly mentions that details of each structural arrangement should be clear and concise at level of the ordinary skill in the art.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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 3, the limitation “the limitation “wherein the plurality of stiffeners further comprise at least one hinge” 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. See explanation in the objection to specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are 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 1, the limitation “a plurality of stiffeners that that define boundaries of one or more folding points of the wiring harness” and “wherein the rigid gripping member is configured to be grabbable by a robotic arm and manipulated to fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Note that according to specification, stiffeners are rigid or stiff portion which is not able to bend itself, so how come one or more folding points which is outlines of a plurality of stiffeners able to fold; However, folding point are folding portions 106, 108 which are flexible itself and able bend whenever needed provided next to or adjacent to stiffeners but not part of stiffeners; therefore, claim 1 mentioning that a plurality of stiffeners that that define boundaries of one or more folding points of the wiring harness are incorrect or misleading.
Furthermore, the rigid gripping member is configured … manipulated to fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points” is unclear.
It is not clear that what is considered to be manipulate to fold and unfold the wiring harness. Note that the rigid gripping member 130 or 140 do not have any part is used to fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points; it is folding points 108 between stiffeners 120, 110 is used for fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points. Please clarify how the rigid gripping member is configured … manipulated to fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points. It is not clear in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Rejection of claim 3, the limitation “wherein the plurality of stiffeners further comprise at least one hinge” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Specification mentions that stiffeners 120, 122 may include one or more hinge mechanisms (not shown) that facilitate harness folding at folding points 106, 108 and/or define a range of motion of segments 162, 164 at folding points 106, 108, from specification it is not clear how hinge in either 120 or 122 facilitate harness folding at folding points 106, 108 which are folding portion next to 120 or 122 and different from stiffeners 120 and 122, no clear indication how hinge will work and structured in stiffener is not described . And none of figures shows how hinge in each of stiffeners 120 and 122, and after implementation of hinge, are portions 120 and 122 rigid portions or folding portions?; and what is use of folding portions 106 and 108 which is next to portions 120 and 122 . Specification fails to disclose how exactly hinge would work when it will implemented in the stiffeners, and stiffener portion would be stable or rigid anymore, what is function of folding portions 106, and 108 when you have already hinge which works as folding, none of clarification is given properly. Specification is incomprehensive when considered by the ordinary skill in the art
Note that structural considered to indefinite when not properly enabled and understandable by the ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, , claim 3 is unclear or indefinite.
Rejection of claim 4, the limitation “wherein the plurality of stiffeners comprise a first pair of stiffeners symmetrically arranged at a first position along a length of the first and second cables to define a first folding point, and a second pair of stiffeners symmetrically arranged at a second position along a length of the first and second cables to define a second folding point different than the first folding point.” is unclear or indefinite.
See explanation in rejection claim 1, also, stiffeners are rigid or stiff portions while portions 106 are flexible portions which defined as first folding portions and next to stiffeners 106. Therefore, claim 4 has the plurality of stiffeners define a first folding point is ambiguous or incorrect, plurality of stiffeners 120 are next to respective first folding points 106. And similarly, , plurality of stiffeners 122 are next to respective second folding points 108.
Therefore, proper clarification is required.
Rejection of claims 13-19, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 13-19 recite the broad recitation a carrier plate coupled to the wiring harness, wherein the carrier plate carries a plurality of first connector portions configured to be mated with a corresponding plurality of second connector portions of a main body to form a plurality of electrical connectors of an electronic control unit connection system. so on until claim 19, and the claims also recite the wiring harness of claim 1 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, additionally, claim 1 which predecessor of claims 13-19 are limited to the wire harness while claims 13-19 mentions positively claiming details subject matter beyond the wire harness such as a carrier plate, connectors, electronic control unit connection system. so on . The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Note that dependent claims should be within scope of independent claim. See terminology such as when claiming an airplane as primary invention and independent claim, claiming positively structure of run way and terminal are irrational as well as misleading based on independent claim which only defines airplane. Therefore, these claims should be cancelled or correctly amended and introduced under proper amendment.
Proper clarification is required.
Rejection of claims 2-19, claims 2-19 are further rejected by one or more reasons are mentioned above by the rejection of one or more preceding claims.
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: The rejection under USC 102 and USC 103 below with modified language are given to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above to consider the rejection under USC 102 and USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all rejections set forth 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 1-2, 4, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Inoa et al. (US20150136484, herin referred to as Inoa).
Rejection of claim 1, Inoa discloses a wiring harness (see figures 6-7) for robotic installation in a vehicle (note that “for” defines intended use or having capacity), comprising:
a first cable and a second cable that each carry electrical conductors in the form of wiring (see parallel wires or cables 2) ;
a plurality of stiffeners (non-bendable tube portions 13) and one or more folding points of the wiring harness ( bendable tube portions 12) ; and
a rigid gripping member (a clamp 6) mechanically coupled between the first and second cables to define a distance (see figures), wherein the rigid gripping member is configured to be grabbable by a robotic arm and manipulated to fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points defined by the plurality of stiffeners (wherein by having claimed structure herein the rigid gripping member 6, it intended to use or having capacity to be grabbable by a robotic arm and manipulated to fold and unfold the wiring harness at the folding points defined by the plurality of stiffeners, note that note that “for” defines intended use or having capacity) .
Note : Reference Ruediger EP0543469 is more suitable reference based on figures; however, claim language claims different or broader, therefore rejection is given based on claim language.
Rejection of claim 2, Inoa discloses the wiring harness of claim 1, wherein the distance corresponds to a width between the first and second cables in an installation position within a body of the vehicle (see distance between two cables as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Rejection of claim 4, Inoa discloses the wiring harness of claim 1, wherein the plurality of stiffeners comprise a first pair of stiffeners symmetrically arranged at a first position along a length of the first and second cables next to first folding points, and a second pair of stiffeners symmetrically arranged at a second position along the length of the first and second cables next to second folding points different than the first folding points (see non-bending portions 13 at one ends are next to bending portions 12 and non-bending portions 13 at other ends are next to other bending portions 12 in figures 6-7 of Inoa).
Rejection of claim 11, Inoa discloses the wiring harness of claim 1, wherein the rigid gripping member is a first cross-stiffening member mechanically coupled between the first and second cables at a first position along a length of the first and second cables and defines the distance as a first distance, and further comprising: at least a second cross-stiffening member mechanically coupled between the first and second cables and configured to define a second distance (see more than one clamps between two cables in figures 6-7 of Inoa).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoa.
Rejection of claim 12, Inoa discloses the wiring harness of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second distance is different than the first distance.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to the second distance is different than the first distance since it would be possible based on user need slight change in one cross stiffing member size than other in order to fit in place or position which required adjustment in size cross stiffing member also it is considered be old, and known; or it could be manufacturing defect wherein one cross stiffing member size than other, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoa in view of Tsunoda et al. (US20060056165, herein referred to as Tsunoda).
Rejection of claim 3, Inao discloses the wiring harness of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of stiffeners further comprise at least one hinge.
Tsunoda discloses the plurality of stiffeners further comprise at least one hinge (see hinge 31 in rigid member 29 in figure 8A-8B of Tsunoda ).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention of the wiring harness of Inao to have hinge in rigid member as taught by Tsunoda so that the wire harness easily contracted and extended using a hinge based on users need or utilized by length requirement to connect components at both ends.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoa in view of Kato et al. (DE112016001554, herein referred to as Kato).
Rejection of claim 5, Inao discloses the wiring harness of claim 4, but fails to disclose further comprising instructions that enable a robotic actuator to fold or unfold the wiring harness.
Kato discloses instructions that enable a robotic actuator to fold or unfold the wiring harness (see 5 or 5a in figure, and further see specification wherein it contains instructions).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have wire harness with recording mediums or tags with information or bar codes because the recording medium 5a contains the mounting position information 611 and sequence information 613 relating to the cable harness 2 in its folded form, recorded in an electromagnetically or optically readable format. Therefore, when the wiring harness 2 is installed in the vehicle 10, the mounting position information 611 and sequence information 613 are read by a reading device from the recording medium 5a, which was provided together with the wiring harness 2 in the folded form. The automation robot 9 installs the wiring harness 2 into the vehicle 10 using the information read out above.. Also, note that accessing information through different QR codes provided on different parts of body of the product for installation, user manual which defines how each part works, intended use, identification, or alerts are well known and old.
Additionally, it is considered printed matter..2111.05. no relationship between the substrate and the info so it is not given patentable Weight…. Further See 10/236,088 PTAB decision…see pg. 25-26 wherein the board stated that “the difference between the claimed subject matter and the applied prior art resides in the particular indicia printed on the elongated member and, specifically, in the attachment of a set of instructions to the product. "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, instructions about how to use a product, such as the combined writing instrument and calendar of Fisher, are not functionally related to the calendar strip on which they are printed. They merely convey information to the user in the same manner they would if they were printed elsewhere. Appellant is not entitled to a patent to an otherwise unpatentable method of making a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product”.
Rejection of claim 6-10, claims 6-10 are rejected by or not given patentable weight as same reason applied to rejection of claim 5 above.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior arts 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 arts in the present case, all of which disclose various wire harnesses.
Response to Arguments.
The prior arts 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 arts in the present case, all of which disclose various wire harnesses.
Responding applicants arguments, amended of claim 1 do not solve that problem of USC 112 as mentioned above, see rejection of claim 1 under USC 112.
In claim 3, specification raised the issue of enablement, therefore, not able clear to understand by ordinary skill in the art as mentioned in specifications as well as rejections under USC 112 above.
In claim 4, rejection of claim was not given only based on antecedent basis, there are other issue which not clarified.
In claim 5 to 10, note that RF tag or bar code is the code or number and which through user able to access information via scanner coder or machine. Specification clearly states , harness may include instructions printed on one or more surfaces of harness that indicate characteristics of harness that the robotic actuator may use to define a motion to fold or unfold the harness. Therefore, information nothing other than printed matter; as well as it is part of intended use; and product is what it is not , not what it does;
Furthermore, no relationship between the wiring harness as a substrate and the information in the code, therefor the bar code is treated as printed matter and not given patentable weight. See ptab decision 10236088 10/18/20007, pg. 25. The instructions are not functionally related to the wiring harness, they merely convey information to the user in the same manner as if it had been printed somewhere else. Therefore what the codes is considered printed matter. See MPEPE , wherein it is considered printed matter..2111.05. no relationship between the substrate and the info so it is not given patentable Weight…. Further See 10/236,088 PTAB decision…see pg. 25-26 wherein the board stated that “the difference between the claimed subject matter and the applied prior art resides in the particular indicia printed on the elongated member and, specifically, in the attachment of a set of instructions to the product. "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, instructions about how to use a product, such as the combined writing instrument and calendar of Fisher, are not functionally related to the calendar strip on which they are printed. They merely convey information to the user in the same manner they would if they were printed elsewhere. Appellant is not entitled to a patent to an otherwise unpatentable method of making a known product by simply attaching a set of instructions to that product”.
In claims 13-19, wherein the states “The wiring harness of claim 1, further comprising” therefore, claim positively claiming a carrier plate and structure of the carrier plate having the carrier plate carries a plurality of first connector portions. Therefore, rejection under USC 112 proper. A proper lineage either the wiring harness configured to couple to a carrier plate, similarly with other structure limitation; or other way to defines new preamble appropriate or suitable for having a carrier plate , a wire harness, and a ECU. Therefore, rejection under USC 112 is proper. Please check MPEP.
It is advised to carefully read and consider specification and amend claims clearly and concisely based on the ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, applicants 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
Prosecution Insights