DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on December 05, 2025 is being examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification states “The corrugated tube 2 may also be constituted by the outer layer structure 31, a plurality of the intermediate layer structures 32, and the inner layer structure 33. In this case, in the corrugated tube 2, the layer structure located at the outer side out of the two layer structures in close contact with each other forms the "first layer structure" and the layer structure located at the inner side out of the two layer structures forms the "second layer structure".”
It is not clear that “the layer structure located at the outer side out of the two layer structures in close contact with each other forms the "first layer structure" and the layer structure located at the inner side out of the two layer structures forms the "second layer structure".”
One ordinary skill in the art would not easily understand what is “the layer structure” refers to and “the two layer structure” refers to what. It is not clear that “the outside” reference to what, and what is part of the first layer structure and what is part of second layer structure; and the two layer structures refers to what kind of layer structures inner, intermediate, and outer layers structures and what exactly are they. No clear indication given in the specification so that easily understand by ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, is it not clear what is considered as first layer structure and second layer structure.
Specification is incomprehensive in this matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show The corrugated tube 2 may also be constituted by the outer layer structure 31, a plurality of the intermediate layer structures 32, and the inner layer structure 33. In this case, in the corrugated tube 2, the layer structure located at the outer side out of the two layer structures in close contact with each other forms the "first layer structure" and the layer structure located at the inner side out of the two layer structures forms the "second layer structure". as described in the specification, further fails to discloses all the subject matter dependent claims based on claim 1. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of invention I encomssing claims 1-12 with traverse of in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups overlap in scope and that there is no burden on the examiner This is not found persuasive because
First, the question as to whether or not inventions overlap in scope is not whether the groups share some limitations. In fact, if such were the case, no restriction between groups with a linking or generic claim would ever be proper. Clearly, such an interpretation would not be consistent with restriction practice or double patenting practice as a whole. Rather, related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention.
And second, the classification of a particular invention in a class and subclass is not to be construed as a complete field of search. Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. For example, The species require different field of search (e.g. employing different search queries). Also, the prior art applicable to one specie would not likely be applicable to another specie. Such as, Arrangement or structure of the arrangements or structure species B2 having the outer layer structure 31 and the inner layer structure 33, the outer layer structure 31 is formed using a hard material and the inner layer structure 33 is formed using a soft material required different field of search (e.g. employing different search as well as different prior art than
arrangements or structure of species B1 having The intermediate layer structure 32 is formed using a softer material (soft material) than the outer layer structure 31 and/or the inner layer structure 33. The prior art applicable to with above structure of one species may not be applicable to prior art for other species.
And Third, one of the ordinary could not established some of the species to be generic. For example, see having enablement and incomprehensiveness issue as mention in objection; it is not clear to identify structure of first layer structure and second layer structures well as material of the first layer structure and second layer structures.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 , and the Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Rejection of claim 1, the limitation “the first layer structure is formed from one of first material and a second material and the second layer structure is formed of a different one of the first material and the second material, and the second material is different from the first material and the second material is harder than the first material” is failing to comply with the enablement requirement, and contains new subject matter which was not described in the specification.
Elected species A5 in Specification fails to describe what is considered as the first layer structure and the second layer structure (see explanation in specification). Therefore, claim is incomprehensive to clearly evaluated based on elected species.
It is new matter that elected species fails to disclose the first layer structure and the second layer structure are arranged in close contact with each other if intermediate layers as the two layer structures in between.
It is new matter and/or enablement issue that first material and second material can not be clearly identify based on the first layer structure and second layer structure.
Additionally, elected species mentions that intermediate layer structure 32 is softer that inner and outer layer structures. If first layer structure contains a material of outer layer structure , and second layer structure contains a material of inner layer structure; then claim fails to disclose the second material is different from the first material and the second material is harder than the first material.
But one of ordinary skill in the art do not know that what is first layer structure and the second layer structure, one of ordinary skill in the art can not interpret this limitation as well as other limitation mentioned in the dependent claims.
Therefore, the claim has major issue which is properly clarified.
Rejection of claims 2-9, claims 2-9 are depends on the respective preceding claims, therefore, also is rejected by reasons as apply in respective one or more preceding claims.
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 1-9 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 “the first layer structure is formed from one of a first material and a second material and the second layer structure is formed of a different one of the first material and the second material, and the second material is different from the first material and the second material is harder than the first material” is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
This limitation indefinite because no clear structure clarification provided for first layer structure and the second layer structure, therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art is not able also identify the first material and the second material are properly assigned to the first layer structure and the second layer structure. See further explanation in specification and 112(a).
Appropriate clarification is required.
Rejection of claims 2-9, claims 2-8 are depends on the respective preceding claims, therefore, also is rejected by reasons as apply in respective 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: note that objection to specification and Rejection under USC 112 are given and sufficient enough. Rejection under USC 103 below is given to advance prosecution; however, a proper clarification or amendment is required under rejection of USC 112 and specification above to consider the rejection of USC 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)or (a)(2)(whichever apply) as being anticipated by Kenichi et al. (WO2015099128, herein referred to as Kenichi) or Soo et al. (KR101046370, herein referred to as Soo) in view of Arima et al. (US20040256017, hereinafter Arima).
Rejection of claim 1, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) disclose a corrugated tube comprising:
a first layer structure having a tubular shape and serving as a layer portion on an outer side (2 in figure 2a or 5 in figure 8c of Kenichi; or 110 in Soo); and
a second layer structure having a tubular shape and serving as a layer portion on an inner side of the first layer structure ( 1 in figure 2a or 3 in figure 8c of Kenichi; or 130 in figure 11 or 14 of Soo and),
wherein the second layer structure is configured to accommodate an electric wire inside the corrugated tube (Kenichi discloses Electric wires may be disposed inside the piping structure; or Soo mentions that the installation of an outer cover surrounding a plurality of wire cables or the like, or the installation of a cover covering a pipe of a pipe) and the first layer structure and the second layer structure are in contact with each other and movable relative to each other (see figure of Kenichi wherein by having structure as mentioned of first and second layer structures in Kenichi, both structures are separable and movable to each other; or see Soo mentions that the fixing medium 130 is formed to be in close contact with the wrinkle pipe 110 and able to movable relative to each other; see rejection under USC 112 prior to consider this rejection);
Kenichi or Soo fails to disclose the first layer structure is formed from one of a first material and a second material and the second layer structure is formed of a different one of the first material and the second material, and the second material is different from the first material and the second material is harder than the first material.
Arima discloses the first layer structure is formed from one of a first material and a second material and the second layer structure is formed of a different one of the first material and the second material, and the second material is different from the first material and the second material is harder than the first material (see material of paragraph 0055-0057 of Arima).
It would been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corrugated tube of Kenichi or Soo to have corrugated layer structures made of material as taught by Arima in order to provide a vibration absorption with excellent pressure resistance and gas permeation resistance, and does not loose sufficient vibration absorbing property if formed short in length.
Rejection of claim 2, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose the corrugated tube according to claim 1, wherein, when external force acts on an outer surface of the first layer structure, a deformation of the outer surface of the first layer structure and a deformation of an inner surface of the second layer structure a creates a cavity between the first layer structure and the second layer structure (by having all structure as mentioned in claim 1, Kenichi or Soo in view of Arima).
Rejection of claim 3, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose the corrugated tube according to claim 1, wherein, when external force acts on an outer surface of the first layer structure, impact force is transmitted in a direction inclined to an inner surface of the second layer structure due to a relative movement of contact surfaces of the first layer structure and the second layer structure (by having all structure as mentioned in claim 1, Kenichi or Soo is able to perform claimed use when external force acts on an outer surface of the first layer structure, impact force is transmitted in a direction inclined to an inner surface of the second layer structure due to a relative movement of contact surfaces of the first layer structure and the second layer structure; see rejection under USC 112 prior to consider this rejection).
Rejection of claim 4, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose the corrugated tube according to claim 2, wherein, when external force acts on an outer surface of the first layer structure, impact force is transmitted in a direction inclined to an inner surface of the second layer structure due to a relative movement of contact surfaces of the first layer structure and the second layer structure (by having all structure as mentioned in claim 1, Kenichi or Soo is able to perform claimed use when external force acts on an outer surface of the first layer structure, impact force is transmitted in a direction inclined to an inner surface of the second layer structure due to a relative movement of contact surfaces of the first layer structure and the second layer structure; see rejection under USC 112 prior to consider this rejection).
Rejection of claim 5, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose a wire harness comprising: the corrugated tube according to claim 1; and one or more electric wires including the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube (see rejection of claim 1 wherein the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube).
Rejection of claim 6, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose a wire harness comprising: the corrugated tube according to claim 2; and one or more electric wires including the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube (see rejection of claim 1 wherein the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube ).
Rejection of claim 7, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose a wire harness comprising: the corrugated tube according to claim 3; and one or more electric wires including the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube (see rejection of claim 1 wherein the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube).
Rejection of claim 8, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose a wire harness comprising: the corrugated tube according to claim 4; and one or more electric wires including the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube (see rejection of claim 1 wherein the electric wire accommodated in the corrugated tube).
Rejection of claim 9, Kenichi (figure 2a or 8c) or Soo (figures 11 or 14) and Arima disclose wherein the first material has a first dissolution parameter and the second material has a second dissolution parameter, and a magnitude of the difference between the first dissolution parameter and the second dissolution parameter is greater than or equal to 1.5 such that the first layer structure and the second layer structure are freely movable relative to each other (see materials in Arima in rejection of claim 1).
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as mentioned below. Furthermore, please refer to the enclosed PTO-892 form for the citation of pertinent art in the present case, all of which disclose various wire harnesses.
US6186182; US4262162; US3117718;
US4705914; US20110297415; US8569622;
WO2016135333; WO2014034591.
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