Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/737,120

WIRE HARNESS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
ROBINSON, KRYSTAL
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Yazaki Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
652 granted / 756 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -6% lift
Without
With
+-5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
783
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.8%
+7.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.6%
-6.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 756 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2023/005914 filed on February 20, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 7, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "5" have both been used to designate the “first protector” and the “movable structure”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because: they fail to show “a first protector that is disposed on a first link” as described in the specification. The term “cylindrical” for parts “first cylindrical portion 11”, “third cylindrical portion 22”, “second cylindrical portion 21”, is shown a a rectangular shape in the drawing. “Cylindrical” is a shape having straight parallel sides and a circular or oval cross-section; in the shape or form of a cylinder. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 are 1-6 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. Claim 1 recites “a second link rotatable relative to the first link” but does not identify any joint/axis/structure defining the rotation, leaving “rotatable” functionally stated and indefinite as to bounds. Rejection, 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Claim 1 recites “disposed on a first link” and “disposed on a second link” without clarifying whether this means mounted to, integrally formed with, surrounding, attached adjacent to, etc. Claim 1 recites “an exterior member having a flexible cylindrical shape” but “flexible” and “cylindrical shape” are relative terms lacking objective boundaries and/or material (e.g., minimum bend radius, degree of cylindricity). Also, the claim does not clarify whether the exterior member is a tube, corrugated conduit, braided sleeve, or other structure;a cylindrical shape being flexible, without defining the materials that makes it flexible, makes the term unclear. The applicant should mention the material that makes the cylindrical shape flexible. Claim 1 recites motion “along an axial direction of the first cylindrical portion,” but the axis is not defined in the claim (e.g., centerline of a bore), and may be indeterminate depending on geometry. Claim 1 recites “a movable structure that allows the first end portion to move relative to the first link,” which is purely functional and does not particularly point out the structure. Claim 1 recites “Allows … to move” is an intended result; the claim does not recite the components/constraints that provide the allowance, making scope uncertain. Claim 2 recites “a fitting structure” which is a non-structural label; it does not further limit the claim with definite structure. Claim 2 recites “slidably fitted” but does not specify surfaces, tolerances, or engagement length, leaving unclear what degree of sliding/fit is required. Claim 3 recites “a slide structure” which is a non-structural label; the term is indefinite without structural constraints. Claim 3 states “allows the first cylindrical portion to move relative to the first link,” but claim 1 already says the first cylindrical portion is “disposed on a first link that is fixed”; unclear whether the cylindrical portion is fixed or movable relative to the first link. Claim 1 does not identify whether “movable structure” is part of the first protector, the exterior member, the first link, or a separate component, making scope unclear. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato et al. (US 2007/0148994) teaches a wire harness with a link-type movable body. Sato et al. (US 2007/0148992) teaches a harness with links and protective bodies that slide and pivot. Nagayasu (US 2014/0332265) teaches a corrugated tube that allows flexibility for bending of the wire harness. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604407
SECURELY LINKED NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592527
Current Signaling Wall Socket Face Plate
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592552
CENTRAL TENSION LINE FOR OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION CABLE HAVING DAMAGE DETECTION FUNCTION AND OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION CABLE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587001
WIRING MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588159
Dual Hinge Cable Management Cover
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-5.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 756 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month