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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizushita et al. (WO 2020/121463).
Mizushita et al. discloses a wiring system, comprising a multipurpose wiring member including at least one multipurpose circuit and a multipurpose connector (24) to which the multipurpose circuit is connected, the wiring system further exclusively including: a first purpose wiring member (40A) including a first purpose circuit and a first purpose connector (54) to which the first purpose circuit is connected, the first purpose wiring member electrically connecting the first purpose circuit to a first electrical component (E3); and a second purpose wiring member (40B) including a second purpose circuit and a second purpose connector (54) to which the second purpose circuit is connected, the second purpose wiring member electrically connecting the second purpose circuit to a second electrical component (48) of a type different from the first electrical component, wherein when the first purpose connector (54 of 40A) is connected to the multipurpose connector (24), the multipurpose circuit is connected to the first purpose circuit (Fig. 4), and when the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector, the multipurpose circuit is connected to the second purpose circuit (Fig. 5), and wherein the multipurpose wiring member is attached to a vehicle in a state of being detached from the vehicle more hardly than the first purpose wiring member and the second purpose wiring member (Fig. 12, the multipurpose wiring member is being attached/tied up to the support 204; while the first and second purpose wiring members are not) (re-claim 1). It is noted that since the multipurpose circuit of Mizushita et al. comprises structure and material as claimed, a circuit of the multipurpose circuit can transmit different types of electricity in which voltage to be applied, a maximum current value to be assumed, or a signal form is different between a state where the first purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector and a state where the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector (re-claim 1).
Mizushita et al. also discloses that the multipurpose wiring member is a wiring member attached to the vehicle through a portion hidden by a fluid piping (204, Fig. 14) (re-claim 5); when a plurality of exclusive equipment systems in which a first equipment specification including the first electrical component and a second equipment specification including the second electrical component are exclusively adopted are set, the multipurpose circuit includes circuits exclusively connected to the first electrical component and the second electrical component to correspond to at least two of the plurality of exclusive equipment systems, respectively (Fig. 7) (re-claim 7); the multipurpose circuit includes a circuit transmitting a different type of electricity between a state where the first purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector and a state where the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector (Fig. 7) (re-claim 9); the multipurpose circuit includes a circuit transmitting a different type of electricity for any of a power source, a ground, and a signal between a state where the first purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector and a state where the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector (Fig. 7) (re-claim 10).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (2002/0113460) in view of Mizushita et al.
Murakami et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed including the multipurpose wiring member (2c) including a grommet (7) attached to the multipurpose circuit and inserted into a through hole (12c) formed in a panel (12) of the vehicle, wherein the grommet is not mounted to the first purpose wiring member (2a) and the second purpose wiring member (2b) (re-claim 2). Murakami et al. does not disclose the system comprising features cited in claim 1.
Mizushita et al. discloses a wiring system comprising all features as cited in claim 1, see the above rejection with respect to Mizushita et al. reference.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the wiring system (shown in Fig. 3 or 7) as taught by Mizushita et al. for the wiring system (2) of Murakami et al., with the multipurpose wiring member (of Mizushita) being attached to the grommet (7 of Murakami) and inserted into the hole (12c) formed in the panel (12), to easily correspond to a difference in specifications of automobiles while enabling a reduction in a redundant circuit and a redundant terminal connector as much as possible.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushita et al.
Re-claim 3, although not disclosed in Mizushita et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach the multipurpose wiring member of Mizushita et al. to a travel power source of the vehicle to meet the specific use of the resulting system since a wiring member being attached to a travel power source of a vehicle is known in the art.
Re-claim 8, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to choose a suitable ratio between the total number of the at least one of the multipurpose circuits and the total number of all of the plurality of circuits in the multipurpose wiring member of Mizushita et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting system since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushita et al. in view of Kisu et al. (2021/0309168).
Mizushita et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the multipurpose wiring member being attached to a roof lining of the vehicle. Kisu et al. (Fig. 4) discloses a system comprising a wiring member (W) being attached to a roof lining (1) of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach the multipurpose wiring member of Mizushita et al. to a roof lining of the vehicle, as taught by Kisu et al. to provide transmission thereto.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushita et al. in view of Swade (5971799).
Swade discloses a wiring system (Fig. 3) comprising a second purpose wiring member (20) connected to a second electrical component (5) exclusively mounted to a first electrical component (connected via connector 48). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the wiring system of Mizushita et al. by having the second electrical component exclusively mounted to the first electrical component as taught by Swade to meet the specific use of the resulting wiring system.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swade in view of Murakami et al.
Swade discloses a multipurpose wiring member comprising a multipurpose circuit (3) exclusively connected to a first electrical component (8) and a second electrical component (9) of a type different from the first electrical component, wherein the multipurpose wiring member is attached to a travel power source (8) of the vehicle (re-claim 11). Swade also discloses that the multipurpose circuit (3) includes a circuit transmitting different types (8 or 9) of electricity in which voltage to be applied, a maximum current value to be assumed, or a signal form is different between a state where the first purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector and a state where the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector (re-claim 12).
Swade does not disclose the multipurpose wiring member including a grommet attached to the multipurpose circuit and inserted into a through hole formed in a panel of the vehicle (re-claim 11).
Murakami et al. discloses a multipurpose wiring member including a multipurpose circuit (2c) and a grommet (7) attached to the multipurpose circuit and inserted into a through hole formed in a panel of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the grommet as taught by Murakami et al. in the multipurpose wiring member of Swade to provide attaching means for the wiring member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11-12 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Mizushita fails to disclose each of the features of claim 1. For example, the features of "the multipurpose circuit includes a circuit transmitting different types of electricity in which voltage to be applied, a maximum current value to be assumed, or a signal form is different between a state where the first purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector and a state where the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector," as recited in claim 1.
Examiner would disagree. Mizushita discloses in the wiring system, there is a state where the first purpose connector (54 of the first wiring member 40A) is connected to the multipurpose connector (24, Fig. 4), and a state where the second purpose connector (54 of the second wiring member 40B) is connected to the multipurpose connector. Therefore, a circuit in the multipurpose circuit of Mizushita can transmit different types of electricity in which voltage to be applied, a maximum current value to be assumed, or a signal form between two states, see also page 2 of machine translation of Mizushita (the electric parts E1, E2, E3, E4, electric parts mounted in various parts of the automobile such as various devices mounted on an instrument panel are assumed, and for example, a power supply part, an electronic control unit, a motor, a display device, A switch, a light emitting unit, a heater, a sensor, etc. are assumed.)
Applicant argues that Mizushita fails to disclose "exclusively including: a first purpose wiring member including a first purpose circuit and a first purpose connector to which the first purpose circuit is connected, the first purpose wiring member electrically connecting the first purpose circuit to a first electrical component; and a second purpose wiring member including a second purpose circuit and a second purpose connector to which the second purpose circuit is connected, the second purpose wiring member electrically connecting the second purpose circuit to a second electrical component of a type different from the first electrical component, when the first purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector, the multipurpose circuit is connected to the first purpose circuit, and when the second purpose connector is connected to the multipurpose connector, the multipurpose circuit is connected to the second purpose circuit" as recited in claim 1.
Examiner would disagree because Mizushita does disclose the wiring system exclusively including the first wiring member (40A) being connected to a first electrical component E3 (Fig. 4) and the second wiring member (40B) being connected to a second electrical component E4 (Fig. 5) which is different from the first electrical component. Although Mizushita discloses the second wiring member (40B) also connected to component E3 in Figure 5, the claimed invention does not call for ONLY a second electrical component, which is different from the first electrical component, being connected to the second wiring member.
Applicant argues that the reinforcement 204 of Mizushita cannot be construed as a fluid piping. Examiner would disagree. The claimed invention does not claim fluid in the pipe. The fact that component 204 of Mizushita is a cylindrical tube having open ends, it is a fluid piping.
Applicant argues that Murakami fails to disclose the multipurpose wiring member being attached to the vehicle through a portion hidden. Examiner would disagree. The claimed invention does not claim fluid in the pipe. The fact that component 7b of Murakami is a cylindrical tube having open ends, it is a fluid piping.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Murakami and Mizushita, individually, with respect to the combination of the two references, examiner’s replies in the above with respect to each of the two references are hereby equally applied.
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
Prosecution Insights