DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on June 30, 2026 is being examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification states “when a clamp or a clip is used as the fixing tool 31, the harness fixing structure 30 fixes at least two positions of the one end 11a and the other end 11b of the route regulating portion 11 to the one end portion 611 and the other end portion 612 of the arm member 610 with the fixing tool 31”. Also specification mentions that a fixing structure 30 includes a fixing tool 31, not two fixing tools.
It appears that specification either unclear or misleading. From figures it requires to two fixing members. It requires two clamps or clips in order to fix wire harness at both end of the regulating portion 11. Instead specification defines a clamp or a clip appears to fix both ends which spaced apart from each other. It is not clear how a clamp or a clip would fix the regulating portion 11 at two spaced apart locations of an arm member.
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.
Claims 4-9 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.
Rejection of claims 4-9, the limitation “the harness body is routed to at least one of a plurality of link mechanisms” is indefinite or unclear.
There are at least two link mechanisms: a link mechanism in claim 1 and one of a plurality of link mechanisms in claims 4-9. Also, note that when claiming at least one of a plurality of link mechanisms, specification must clarify both essential matters: one link mechanism or plural link mechanisms.
Specification does not mentioned by specification how same wire harness body 10 is attached more than one link mechanisms (610,611,612). No clear and concise elaboration and structure given in specification as well as no drawings for how single wire harness routed and fixed along link mechanisms (610,611,612). 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, by failing to provide written description of the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains.
Appropriate action is required.
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 claims 1-3, the limitation “the link mechanism at least one location so as not to cause relative displacement between the route regulating portion and the link mechanism.” as being incomplete for omitting critical structural cooperative relationships of elements; therefore, consider unclear or indefinite.
Claim 1 requires two fixing members or tools placed at opposite ends of the routing members in order to stop or restrict movement of the route regulating portion.
Therefore, claim 1 is infinite or unclear.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for the same reason applied to claim 1.
Rejection of claim 2, the term “ one end portion’ and “other end portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Rejection of claims 4-9, the limitation “the harness body is routed to at least one of a plurality of link mechanisms” is indefinite or unclear.
There if no relationship established between a link mechanism in claim 1 and a plurality of link mechanisms in claims 4-9.
it does not mentioned by specification how and why same wire harness body 10 is attached more than link mechanisms (610,611,612). No clear and concise elaboration given for how single wire harness routed and fixed along link mechanisms (610,611,612). Therefore, it is not clear and not supported by specification and figures having the harness body is routed to more than one plurality of the link mechanisms.
Appropriate action 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.
Note: The rejection under USC 102 and/or USC 103 below are given to advance prosecution; however, proper clarification is required under rejection of USC 112 above to consider the rejection under USC 102 and/or 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US20070148992, herein referred to as Sato).
Rejection of claim 1, Sato (figure 1-3 or figure 6) discloses a wire harness 9 comprising:
a harness body that is a routing component (a wire14; or wire 68) that electrically connects a first electrical connection target installed on a slide door and a second electrical connection target installed on a vehicle body (see paragraphs 0006, 0011 and 0058 wherein harness is continuously supply electric power by power supply unit to auxiliary equipment ) , and includes a route regulating portion (a portion of the wire 14 at 11; a portion of the wire 14 at 72 ) that is routed along a link mechanism (a link arm 2; or a link arm 66) that couples the slide door (a door 1; a door 62) and the vehicle body (a vehicle body 1) and reciprocates the slide door in a sliding direction with respect to the vehicle body (see the figures and specification); and a harness fixing structure that fixes the route regulating portion to the link mechanism at least one location so as not to cause relative displacement between the route regulating portion and the link mechanism (specification in paragraphs 0050-0051 mention that portion 13 of fixing member 11 fix wire harness 14, and fixing member 11 fix to link arm 2; therefore, fixing member 11 restrict movement of wire harness 14 beyond fixing member 11 and away from link arm 2, additionally see specification; or see fixing member 72 in figure 6 wherein a wire harness 68 extending from the vehicle body is installed horizontally along an outer surface of the front link arm 66, an is fixed to the link arm 66 by a holder 72 which also restrict movement of wire harness 68 beyond fixing member 72 and away from link arm 66; note that applicant invention has the route regulating portion 11 is only fix at both ends of the route regulating portion 11 which requires essential structure of two fixing members or tools 31 each at each of the both ends, middle of the route regulating portion 11 is not fix to fixing members therefore relation displacement do occurs, but due to fixing members restrict movement of the route regulating portion 11 at some point so that it does not damage or crush area between door and vehicle, similarly Sato does the same the regulation portion stay along the link mechanisms and does not come out from fixing member 11 because it fixed to both end of portion 13 of fixing member 11).
Rejection of claim 2, Sato discloses the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the harness fixing structure fixes the route regulating portion to an arm member having a door-side turning fulcrum of the link mechanism at one end portion and having a vehicle body-side turning fulcrum of the link mechanism at other end portion (see figures 1-3 of Sato which has an arm member at 2 having a door-side turning fulcrum of the link mechanism at both side; see figure 6 wherein 72 wherein both ends of regulating portions within 72 regulated by 72 . Also note that It obvious and old that fixing wire at multiple locations relative to adjacent object to keep it secure or together ) .
Rejection of claim 3, Sato discloses the wire harness according to claim 2, wherein in the harness fixing structure, one end of the route regulating portion is fixed to the one end portion of the arm member, and other end of the route regulating portion is fixed to the other end portion of the arm member ( each of both ends of arm member to fix to each of both ends of the route regulating portion of wire 14 by fixing structure 11 in figures of Sato).
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
Applicant's arguments of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on applicant’s arguments, new issue appears, see objection to specification, and rejection under USC 112 above. Also, see clarified and modified invention of claim 1. And, It advised to see Applicant cited reference JP2010-142063 (figure 8).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are 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