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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/028874 filed on July 27, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 4, 2024 and October 28, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I including claims 11-15 and 17 in the reply filed on October 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roy (US 8,178,795).
In regards to claim 11, Roy teaches a cable protection member (10, figure 4) for protecting a cable (32), the cable protection member (10) comprising: a cable insertion hole (30; figure 3) through which the cable (32) is inserted; and a pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) divisible in a diameter direction of the cable insertion hole (30); the pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) comprising diameter-direction coupling portions (12) to be immovably coupled (system releases (12) engage apertures (26, left) and click into place, column 4, lines 40-45) in a direction away from each other in the diameter direction of the cable insertion hole (30, figure 2), and the cable insertion hole (30) being formed inside the pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) that are being coupled via the diameter-direction coupling portions (12).
In regards to claim 12, Roy teaches the cable protection member (10) according to claim 11, comprising a cylindrical portion (see the figure below) comprising the cable insertion hole (30), wherein the pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) each comprise a cylindrical half-body portion (see figure 3) that is formed in an elongated shape (extending downward; figure 2 below) having a semicircular arc cross-section (see the figure below) and constitutes the cylindrical portion with the pair of protection member (24a, 24b) sections coupled to each other (figure 5), and the diameter-direction coupling portions (12) extend along a longitudinal direction of the cylindrical half-body portion (see the figure below) on both sides of the cylindrical half-body portion in a circumferential direction (see figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 13, Roy teaches the cable protection member according to claim 12, wherein the diameter-direction coupling portions comprise a locking groove (26) provided at one cylindrical half-body portion (see figure 2 above) of the pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) and a locking projection (12, right) which is provided at the cylindrical half-body portion of another protection section of the pair of protection member sections and can be locked with the locking groove (clicked into place, column 4, line 66).
In regards to claim 15, Roy teaches the cable protection member according to claim 12, comprising a flange portion (see the figure below) provided at an end portion of the cylindrical portion in a longitudinal direction and having an outer diameter larger than an outer diameter of the cylindrical portion (see the figure below), the cable insertion hole (30) extending through the flange (see the figure below), wherein the pair of protection member sections (24a. 24b) each comprise a flange half-body portion which is provided at an end portion of the cylindrical half-body portion in the longitudinal direction (see the figure below), have an inner circumferential surface continuous (without interruption) with an inner circumferential surface of the cylindrical half-body portion (see the figure below) , and constitute the flange portion with the pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) coupled to each other (see the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
520
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 17, Roy teaches the cable protection member according to claim 11, wherein the pair of protection member sections (24a, 24b) each comprise a second longitudinal coupling portion (26, 12; right) to be immovably coupled to each other in both directions of a longitudinal direction of the protection member sections that are being coupled to each other (system releases (12) engage apertures (26, left) and click into place, column 4, lines 40-45).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 8,178,795) in view of Carpenter (US 5,462,312).
In regards to claim 14, Roy teaches the cable protection member according to claim 13.
Roy does not teach the locking groove comprises a circumferential groove extending in the circumferential direction of the cylindrical half-body portion and a radial groove extending from an end portion of the circumferential groove to an inner side in a radial direction of the cylindrical half-body portion, and the locking projection comprises a circumferential projection which can be locked with the circumferential groove and a radial projection which can be locked with the radial groove.
Carpenter teaches a locking groove (78) comprises a circumferential groove extending in the circumferential direction of the cylindrical half-body portion (72) and a radial groove extending from an end portion of the circumferential groove to an inner side in a radial direction of the cylindrical half-body portion (see the figure below), and the locking projection comprises a circumferential projection which can be locked with the circumferential groove and a radial projection which can be locked with the radial groove (see the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
432
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the locking groove comprises a circumferential groove extending in the circumferential direction of the cylindrical half-body portion and a radial groove extending from an end portion of the circumferential groove to an inner side in a radial direction of the cylindrical half-body portion, and the locking projection comprises a circumferential projection which can be locked with the circumferential groove and a radial projection which can be locked with the radial groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oliver (US 4,849,723) teaches a cable feedthrough. Koscik (US 3,836,269) teaches a grommet.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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 Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848