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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of “at least one circuit breaker positioned on the electrical connection and dividing the electrical connection into an upstream segment and a downstream segment” as claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 3 and 4 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.
Claim 3 and Claim 4 are considered indefinite, please see the suggestion below:
Claim 3: “The electrical harness as claimed in claim 2, wherein the [tubular jacket] bundles comprise[s] sixteen bundles and the strands formed as segments of optical fiber are four, the strands formed as [a] segments of optical fiber being regularly distributed around the electrical connection in four of [bundles from] the sixteen bundles.
Claim 4: “The electrical harness as claimed in claim 2, wherein the [tubular jacket] bundles comprise[s] sixteen bundles and the strands formed as [a] segments of optical fiber are eight, the strands formed as [a] segments of optical fiber being regularly distributed around the electrical connection in eight of [the bundles from] the sixteen bundles.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites that “a first half of the bundles of strands forming the tubular jacket all of the strands…are made of metal and for a second half of the bundles…at least 75% of the strands…are made of metal”, meaning that 75% of all the strands forming the jacket are metal; and 25% of the strands forming the jacket would be other materials than metal. However, claim 1 earlier recites at least 80% of the strands being made of metal. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 3 and 4 are included in this rejection because of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffa et al. (2004/0208224) in view of Chan (5414211) and Grieshaber (2024/0364093).
Ruffa et al. discloses an electrical harness comprising at least electrical connection ([0017], core 14 may contain electrical conductors); an electromagnetic protection system comprising a tubular jacket (formed of wires 18 and optical fibers 20) including strands (18) positioned around the electrical connection, at least 80% of the strands being made of metal (page 2, right col., lines 3-4, armor steel wires); and a system comprising at least one optical fiber (20) positioned close to the electrical connection and at least one photo-detection component (28), where in the tubular jacket comprises strands formed as segments of optical fiber (20) forming at least part of the system, and wherein the strands formed as segments of optical fibers (20) have a diameter that is substantially identical (the same) to that of the metal strands ([0017]) (re-claim 1).
Ruffa et al. does not disclose the tubular jacket obtained by braiding bundles of the metal strands and at least one circuit breaker positioned on the electrical connection and dividing the electrical connection into an upstream segment and a downstream segment (re-claim 1).
Chan discloses an electromagnetic protection system comprising a tubular jacket (12) obtained by braiding bundles (32) of strands (30) around an electrical connection (14). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the tubular jacket of Ruffa et al. by forming the metal strands (18) (together with optical fibers 20) into a plurality of bundles and braiding the bundles to form the tubular jacket as taught by Chan since an electromagnetic shield layer formed by served wires or braided wires is well-known in the art.
Grieshaber discloses an electrical harness. Grieshaber discloses that it is known in the art to position a circuit breaker on an electrical connection (electrical conductor) to divide the electrical connection into an upstream segment and a downstream segment and to configure for assuming a closed state in which the at least one circuit breaker allows the current to pass through the upstream and downstream segments of the electrical connection and an open state in which the at least one circuit breaker interrupts the flow of the current between the upstream and downstream segments of the electrical connection ([0006]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to position at least one circuit breaker on the electrical connection of Ruffa et al. to prevent a fault current flowing in the electrical connection, and such feature is well-known in the art as taught by Grieshaber.
It is noted that since the modified harness of Ruffa et al. comprises structure and material as claimed; the system can be configured to detect electric arcs, and the photo-detection component (28) can be configured to receive a light beam guided by the at least one optical fiber (re-claim 1). It has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Re-claim 2, Ruffa et al. discloses all strands in the first half of the bundles forming the jacket being metal and 75% of strands in the second half of the bundles forming the jacket being metal.
Re-claims 3 and 4, Ruffa et al., as modified, discloses the braided tubular jacket comprising a plurality of bundles and a plurality of optical fibers distributed around the electrical connection, but does not disclose the plurality of bundles comprising sixteen bundles and the plurality of optical fibers comprising four or eight optical fibers around the electrical connection. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide sixteen bundles of metal strands and four or eight optical fibers in the modified harness of Ruffa et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting harness, increasing the shielding effect and optical transmission capacity of the harness. It has been held that merely duplicating the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re-claim 5, Ruffa et al. discloses the optical fiber being a single-mode or multi-mode optical fiber.
Re-claim 6, although not disclosed in Ruffa et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to connect the optical fibers of Ruffa et al. in a parallel connection to meet the specific use of the resulting harness since connecting a plurality of transmission lines in a parallel connection is known in the art.
Re-claim 7, although not disclosed in Ruffa et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide each optical fiber in Ruffa et al. with an excess length at at least one end of the tubular jacket for termination purposes since such features are known in the art.
Re-claim 8, it has been held that the patentability of a product claim is determined by the novelty and nonobviouness of the claimed product itself without consideration of the process for making it, simultaneously overbraiding, which is recited in the claim. In re Thorpe, 111 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966; see also In re Nordt Development Co., LLC, [2017-1445] (February 8, 2018).
Re-claim 9, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the modified harness of Ruffa et al. in an aircraft since the modified harness of Ruffa et al. includes both electrical and optical transmissions and since Ruffa et al. teaches that the harness can be used in different systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841