DETAILED ACTION
The response filed on July 01,2026 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 1-6 and 8-9 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 claim 1, the limitation “A wire harness comprising….the wire harness is installed in a vehicle on which a main battery and a sub-battery are mounted, the first electric wire is to be electrically connected to the main battery, and the second electric wire is to be electrically connected to the sub-battery.” Is indefinite or unclear for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
the preamble is deemed a claim limitation, it narrow down the scope to a single product “a wire harness comprising”; but the claim body describes positive structure of main battery and sub-battery in vehicle which is out of boundary of the a wire harness. See analogy, an airplane configure to land on an airport and an airplane lands on an airport. Bot wherein scope of first sentence limited to a structure of an airplane, while scope of second sentence has structure of an airplane and an airport; and structure of the airport does not fall under structure (or preamble of) of the airplane. “configured to” language should be used.
Also note that “a second electric wire is capable of being accommodated” interpreted as a first wire has capabilities to a second wire accommodated; it is not calming a second electric wire. And if a second wire is part of intended use, how the second wire is electrically connected to the sub-battery
Therefore, the claim 1 is indefinite or unclear.
Also not that if applicant positively claiming the main battery and sub-battery; it would change scope of original invention which was limited to a wire harness; therefore, all claims falls under in this scenario would be considered as withdrawn claims.
Rejection of claims 2-6 and 8-9, claims 2-9 are rejected by the same reason applied to rejection of claim 1 above.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Nagahashi et al. (US20150083459, herein referred to as Nagahashi) or Sexton et al. (US8044298, herein referred to as Sexton).
Rejection of claim 1, Nagahashi (figures 6-7 of Nagahashi) or Sexton (figures 2C, 2F, and 3P of Sexton) discloses a wire harness comprising:
a tubular first electric wire configured as a hollow electric wire (43-44 in figures 6-7 of Nagahashi; or 222 in figures 2C, 2F, 3P, and 3T of Sexton); and
a protection member in which the first electric wire is accommodated wire (18, and/or 19 in figures 6-7 of Nagahashi; or 230 in figures 2C, 2F, and 3P of Sexton),
wherein the first electric wire includes a hollow portion in which a second electric wire is capable of being accommodated wire (23 in figures 6-7 of Nagahashi; or 221 in figures 2C, 2F, and 3P of Sexton)’
the wire harness is configure to installed in a vehicle on which a main battery and a sub-battery are mounted, the first electric wire is able to be electrically connected to the main battery, and the second electric wire is able to be electrically connected to the sub-battery ( This limitation do not add any structure to the wire harness; and by having claims structure in Nagahashi, it would satisfy intended use or capabilities. Note that the product is what it is, not what it does, see further MPEP).
Rejection of claim 2, Nagahashi discloses the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the first electric wire includes a tubular hollow conductor with the hollow portion, and an insulating coating covering an outer circumference of the hollow conductor (44 in figure 6-7 of Nagahashi; also note that Sexton in view of Nagahashi under rejection of USC 103 also would satisfy this limitation in order to reduce noise, disturbance, or electromagnetic interference ).
Rejection of claims 3-4, Sexton discloses the wire harness according to wherein the first electric wire includes a flat portion having a cross section in which a width is larger than a height (claim 3) and wherein an inner circumference of a cross section of the protection member has a non-circular shape, and an outer circumference of a cross section of the first electric wire has a non- circular shape (claim 4) (see figures 2C, 2F, and 3P, or 3T of Sexton; furthermore note that Nagahashi under rejection of USC 103 also would satisfy based on that it is well known and old as well as routine skill to change the shape of cable in well-known shape such as rectangular in order to mating with adjacent component such as wall or surface of floor, wall, table, etc. A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976);and see cited arts).
Rejection of claim 6, Nagahashi discloses the wire harness according to claim 1 wherein the protection member is a shield pipe having electrical conductivity (18 in figures 6-7 of Nagahashi).
Rejection of claim 8, Nagahashi or Sexton discloses the wire harness according claim 1, The wire harness according to any one of The wire harness according to any one of wherein the second electric wire includes a second hollow portion in which a third electric wire is capable of being accommodated (21 in figures 6-7 of Nagahashi; or 210 in figures 2C, 2F, and 3P of Sexton).
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) (whichever apply) as being anticipated by Toyama et al. (US20120305308, herein referred to as Toyama).
Rejection of claim 10, Toyama (fig. 5A) discloses a wire harness comprising:
a tubular first electric wire including a first tubular hollow conductor with a hollow portion and a first insulating coating covering an outer circumference of the first tubular hollow conductor (see 24 and 29 in figure 5A of Toyama);
a second electric wire accommodated in the hollow portion and including a second conductor and a second insulating coating covering an outer circumference of the second conductor (see 30 and 31 in figure 5A of Toyama); and
a protection member in which the first electric wire is accommodated (40),
wherein a clearance is defined between an outer circumferential surface of the first electric wire and an inner circumferential surface of the protection member, and a clearance is defined between an outer circumferential surface of the second electric wire and an inner circumferential surface of the first electric wire (see figures in 5A of Toyama wherein a first gap exists between 40 and 29 , and a second gap exists between 24 and 31).
Rejection of claim 1, Toyama (fig. 5A) discloses structure of claim 1 as mentioned above in the rejection of claim 10; also, the wire harness is configure to installed in a vehicle on which a main battery and a sub-battery are mounted, the first electric wire is able to be electrically connected to the main battery, and the second electric wire is able to be electrically connected to the sub-battery ( This limitation do not add any structure to the wire harness; and by having claims structure in Nagahashi, it would satisfy intended use or capabilities. Note that the product is what it is, not what it does, see further MPEP).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (whichever apply) as being unpatentable over Nagahashi or Sexton.
Rejection of claim 4-5, Nagahashi or Sexton discloses the wire harness according claim 1, fails to discloses wherein both the protection member and the first electric wire have a polygonal tube shape (claim 5), wherein an inner circumference of a cross section of the protection member has a non-circular shape, and an outer circumference of a cross section of the first electric wire has a non- circular shape (claim 4).
Examiner make official notice that wherein both the protection member and the first electric wire have a rectangular tube shape for easily placed on flat wall surface as well as effectively placed in corner or edge of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious design choice as well as known and old before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire harness of Nagahashi or Sexton to have rectangular structural arrangement for the reason given in the examiner official notice above. A change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
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 with respect to the claim(s) 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection 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 claim 1 , the amended claim has new issue under USC 112 as mentioned above and note that any scope of invention has been changed from original claimed invention would not consider; and modified rejection under USC 102 is provided above. Additionally see figure 1 of invention wherein “w” is wire harness while 92-93 are batteries, and not part of “W”. See terminology such as if preamble is limited to boundary of a product of car; and the car is charged in a charging station (this consider to be out of scope of a boundary of the product of the car); while the car is capable of charging in a charging station (this limitation is within a scope of a product of the car ), furthermore, See MPEP. Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation.
Therefore, applicant’s 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