DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on June 08 2016 is being examined.
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 1-5 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 “an at least one electric wire-side connector, the electric wire-side connector is provided at an end portion of each of the plurality of electric wires; and a board module including at least one flexible board, at least one first board-side connector, and a second board-side connector, the first board-side connector is provided at one end portion of the flexible board and connected to the electric wire-side connector, and the second board-side connector is provided at another end portion of the flexible board and connected to the device connector of an the electronic device, wherein the flexible board includes a wiring unit having a plurality of wires electrically connected to each of the plurality of electric wires via the electric wire-side connector and the first board-side connector” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claim 1 lacks antecedent basis regarding the unclear scope of each terms: the electric wire-side connector, the flexible board, and the first board-side connector in claim 1, wherein “at least one” connector or board encompasses multiple connectors or boards; for example.. it is unclear whether just one, more than one, or all first board-side connector is provided at one end portion of just one, more than one, or all flexible boards and connected to just one, more than one, or all electric wire-side connector. No clear indication is given. Similarly other limitations of claim 1, and other dependent claims should be clarified.
Thereof, claim 1 is indefinite or unclear.
Furthermore, “a wire harness for an electronic device including a device connector,… the second board-side connector is provided at another end portion of the flexible board and connected to the device connector of an the electronic device”. is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Note that Preamble has “a wire harness for an electronic device including a device connector” wherein “for an electronic device including a device connector” interpreted as intended use of a wire harness.
However, the body of claim mentions “the second board-side connector is provided at another end portion of the flexible board and connected to the device connector of an the electronic device” which appears to be positively claiming structure of the device connector of an the electronic device.
If applicant is claiming intended use of the device connector of an the electronic device; then it should be clarified as “the second board-side connector is provided at another end portion of the flexible board and configure to connected to the device connector of an the electronic device;
and if applicant is claiming positive structure of the device connector of the electronic device; then preamble either incorrect or limited to a wire harness; therefore, it can not have positive structure of the device connector of the electronic device.
Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
Rejection of claims 2-5, claims 2-5 are rejected by same reason applied to rejection of claim 1 (also appropriate correction is required in amended dependent claims that falls under same reason) .
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 § 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.
Note: Rejection under USC 103 is given based on modified claim language as mentioned above in rejection of USC 103 in order to advance prosecution and only be; however, proper amendment is required under rejection under USC 112 to consider USC 103.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppenthal et al. (US5509827, herein referred to as Huppenthal), (Segimoto et al. (US5255155, herein referred to as Segimoto) or Eiichi et al. (US5651694, herein referred to as Eiichi)), and Saka et al. (US5598627, herein referred to as Saka).
Rejection of claim 1, Huppenthal discloses a wire harness (see figures 1-5 and 15) for r an electronic device including a device connector (for defines only intended use), the wire harness comprising:
an electric wire module including a plurality of electric wires (wires 22) and one electric wire-side connector (connector portion 52), the one electric wire-side connector provided at an end portion of the plurality of electric wires (wires 22); and
aboard module including (flex circuit 32), the one first board-side connector (connector portion 42, see figure 7) provided at one end portion of the one flexible board and connected to the one electric wire-side connector (52), and
wherein the one flexible board includes a wiring unit having a plurality of wires electrically connected to each of the plurality of electric wires via the one electric wire-side connector and the first board-side connector,
Huppenthal fails to disclose a second board-side connector provided at other end portion of the flexible board and capable of connecting
Eiichi or Segimoto discloses a second board-side connector provided at other end portion of the one flexible board and capable of connected to a device connector of an electronic device (See figure6-7 of Eiichi; or see figure 7 wherein connector 16 connecting flexible board 5 to component 7A of Segimoto).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of Huppenthal to have structural arrangement as taught by Eiichi or Segimoto so that flexible board detachable attached to the electronic device as well as electrically connect to the electronic device for electrical communication.
Saka discloses the wiring unit includes a joint unit that connects at least two of the plurality of wires to each other (see joint in figures 6A-6D) .
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of Huppenthal in view of Eiichi or Segimoto to have structural arrangement as taught by Saka so that joint conductor wires or tracks are to ensure reliability and safety allowing backup paths in case of failures or damage of primary conductor wire or track.
Rejection of claim 3, Huppenthal in view of (Eiichi or Segimoto) and Saka disclose the wire harness according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the wiring unit includes a through hole that connects at least two of the plurality of wires to each other.
Examiner makes official notice that circuit board having transmission or lead wires or lines on two different levels or layers of the board and connected by conductive via in order to have electrical communication between each other.
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of Huppenthal in view of (Eiichi or Segimoto) and Saka to have structural arrangement so that electrical communication could be possible between each other.
Rejection of claims 4, Huppenthal in view of (Eiichi or Segimoto) and Saka disclose the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the electric wire module is configured to provide along a reinforcement of a vehicle, and is configured to route toward the electronic device arranged in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the reinforcement, and the board module is provided between the electric wire module and the electronic device (By having claimed structure as mentioned in claim 1, Huppenthal in view of (Eiichi or Segimoto) and Saka intended to use to provide along a reinforcement of a vehicle, and is configured to route toward the electronic device arranged in a direction intersecting an extension direction of the reinforcement, and the board module is provided between the electric wire module and the electronic device. Note that term “configure to” defines intended to use or having capacity.).
Rejection of claim 5, Huppenthal in view of (Eiichi or Segimoto) and Saka disclose the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the flexible board is bent or curved in a thickness direction of the flexible board (see the figures of Eiichi or Segimoto).
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 harnesses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (See Eiichi) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to applicant’s arguments, Amendment claims raise new issue under rejection of USC 112 as mentioned above. Furthermore, rejection under USC 103 is given based on modified claim language as mentioned above in rejection of USC 103 in order to advance prosecution and only be; however, proper amendment is required under rejection under USC 112 to consider USC 103.
Therefore, application 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