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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in present Application filed on June 25, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 29, 2024 and June 26, 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.
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 2, 4-5 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 2, the limitation “a plurality of the first board-side connectors attached to the plurality of flexible boards, and the electric wire module includes a plurality of the electric wire-side connectors connected to the plurality of first board-side connectors, respectively.” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
There are many issues with this limitation wherein no clear relationship established between a plurality of flexible boards in claim 4 and a flexible board in claim 1 such as a plurality of flexible boards in claim 4 include a flexible board in claim 1 or a plurality of flexible boards in claim 4 separate from a flexible board in claim 1. Similar problem exist for a plurality of the first board-side connectors and a plurality of the electric wire-side connectors.
Furthermore, in claim 1 claims that 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. That means, ends of plurality of wires of the flexible board and ends of the plurality of electric wires connected occupied by and connected single electric wire-side connector and single. first board-side connector. It is not clear how ends of the plurality of electric wires that are already occupied by the electric wire-side connector and the first board-side connector, and the flexible board. In short, it is not possible to connect the plurality of electric wires to a plurality of flexible boards as mentioned in claim 6, all of wires are occupied by or connected to a flexible board in claim 1.
Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite. Proper clarification is required.
Rejection of claim 4, the limitation “wherein the electric wire module is provided along a reinforcement of a vehicle, and is routed 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” is indefinite and unclear.
A main issue with this limitation is that the claimed invention in the claims is about a wire harness, not a vehicle; however, in claim 5, part of a vehicle structurally claimed as a part of a wire harness which is impossible and incorrect; see further explanation in MPEP. The wire harness can be part of the vehicle; but the vehicle can not be part of the wire harness.
Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite. Proper clarification is required.
Rejection of claim 5, a term “a thickness direction” lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear that a thickness direction refers to a thickness direction of what such as a wires, a flexible board, an electronic device, or else.
Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite. Proper clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated over Huppenthal et al. (US5509827, herein referred to as Huppenthal), Segimoto et al. (US5255155, herein referred to as Segimoto), 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) comprising:
an electric wire module including a plurality of electric wires (wires 22) and an electric wire-side connector (connector portion 52) provided at an end portion of the plurality of electric wires (wires 22); and
a board module including a flexible board (flex circuit 32), a first board-side connector (connector portion 42, see figure 7) provided at one end portion of the flexible board and connected to the electric wire-side connector (52), and
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,
Huppenthal fails to disclose a second board-side connector provided at other end portion of the flexible board and connected to a connector of an electronic device, and the wiring unit includes a joint unit that connects at least two of the plurality of wires to each other.
Segimoto discloses a second board-side connector provided at other end portion of the flexible board and connected to a connector of an electronic device (see figure 7 wherein connector 16 connecting flexible board 5 to component 7A ).
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 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 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 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 Segimoto and Saka to have structural arrangement so that electrical communication could be possible between each other.
Rejection of claim 4, Huppenthal in view of 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 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. This rejection is given to advance prosecution; however, proper amendment is required under rejection of USC 112 as mentioned above to consider this rejection.).
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.
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