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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the improper grammar
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: "wherein the at least two circumferential protrusions" should be "wherein at least two of the circumferential protrusions". Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. Claims 2-20 inherit the deficiency of claim 1.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 17, 19, and 20, the phrase "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 17, and 19, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 9 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the opening and the plane.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwimmbeck (US 20180297542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 a cable sleeve assembly (1) for mounting on a part, the cable sleeve assembly comprising:
a cable sleeve for receiving one or more cables (2);
and a connection device (10) comprising an opening configured to receive and to substantially hold the cable sleeve (7; wherein flange 10 accommodates the cable sleeve 7 in an opening at its center), the connection device configured to be mounted on the part ([0051]; wherein flange 10 is adapted to a component), the connection device being split into at least in two pieces (11 and 12).
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “such as a harness for a vehicle” in claim 1 does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Schwimmbeck (US 20180297542 A1), who teaches the structure as claimed ([0001]).
Regarding claim 3, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 3 that the two pieces (11 and 12) are separable to define a disassembled state and connectable to define an assembled state (wherein the two parts need to be connected to be assembled).
Regarding claim 4, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that the two pieces (11 and 12) are separable and connectable via a clip connection ([0022]; wherein elements 18 on piece 11 and mating elements 19 on piece 12 can be a clip connection).
Regarding claim 6, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that the two pieces (11 and 12) at least partially overlap one another in the assembled state as seen in a receiving direction of the cable sleeve to the opening (wherein 11 and 12 are seen to be overlapping in the assembled state).
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) 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwimmbeck (US 2018 0297542 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that an area of overlapping of the connection device (10) is seen in a receiving direction of the cable sleeve to the opening (wherein the flange 10 is seen to have overlapping parts).
Schwimmbeck discloses the claimed invention except for an area of overlapping is at least 10% of the area of the connection device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use at least 10% of the area of the connection device to overlap, in order to fortify and stabilize the connection of the two pieces, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 14, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that the opening encompasses an area of the connection device seen in a receiving direction of the cable sleeve to the opening (wherein the opening accommodating cable sleeve 7 encompasses an area).
Schwimmbeck discloses the claimed invention except for the opening encompasses at least 10% of an area of the connection device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the opening encompassing at least 10% of an area of the connection device, in order to be able to easily accommodate one or more cables, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 15, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that the opening encompasses an area of the connection device seen in a receiving direction of the cable sleeve to the opening (wherein the opening accommodating cable sleeve 7 encompasses an area).
Schwimmbeck discloses the claimed invention except for the opening encompasses at most 80% of an area of the connection device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the opening encompassing at most 80% of an area of the connection device, in order to maintain the stability of the connection device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 11-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwimmbeck (US 2018 0297542 A1) in view of Aoki (US 6595473 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Schwimmbeck teaches a cable sleeve (7) and connection device (10).
Schwimmbeck does not teach that the cable sleeve comprises at least two circumferential protrusions on its periphery spaced apart to one another along a receiving direction of the cable sleeve to the opening, wherein the at least two circumferential protrusions are substantially abutting the connection device in between.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 2 that the cable sleeve (Col. 1, lines 7-11; wherein corrugated tube 2 accommodates a wire harness) comprises at least two circumferential protrusions (multiple protrusions 11 on cable sleeve 2) on its periphery spaced apart to one another along a receiving direction of the cable sleeve to the opening (the two recesses 9 and 23 shown in figure 1 form the opening shown in figure 2), wherein the at least two circumferential protrusions are substantially abutting the connection device (1) in between (wherein two of the protrusions 11 abut the connection device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable sleeve of Schwimmbeck with the protrusions on the cable sleeve of Aoki, in order to more stably hold the connection device (Aoki Col. 8, lines 41-51).
Regarding claim 8, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that the opening has a substantially circular shape, wherein the opening is split substantially in at least two halves, preferably two halves, such that each of the at least two pieces comprises a substantially circular segment shaped recess, preferably a semi-circular shaped recess, in an outer surface thereof (wherein pieces 11 and 12 form a circular shape, and when split form semi-circular shaped recess).
Schwimmbeck does not explicitly teach that the opening substantially fully surrounds a portion of the cable sleeve in the assembled state.
However, Aoki explicitly teaches in figure 1 that the opening (recesses 9 and 23 together) substantially fully surrounds a portion of the cable sleeve (2) in the assembled state (wherein the opening formed by recesses 9 and 23 completely surrounds the cable sleeve).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly include an opening completely encompassing the cable sleeve from Aoki into the invention of Schwimmbeck in order to provide a clear mode of stabilization for the cable sleeve within the connection device.
Regarding claim 11, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 a connection device (10) having a substantially flat shape (wherein flange 10 is shown to be flat) and wherein the opening is arranged substantially in a central position (wherein the opening accommodating the cable sleeve is shown to be in a center position).
Schwimmbeck does not teach that the connection device is a mounting clip.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 1 that the connection device (1) is a mounting clip (Col 7, lines 30-32; wherein engagement clip 13 mounts the connection device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection device of Schwimmbeck to be a mounting clip, in order to more easily and securely mount the connection device to a part (Aoki Col. 8, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 12, Schwimmbeck teaches a wall thickness of the connection device in a receiving direction of the cable sleeve (wherein the flange 10 has a wall thickness).
Schwimmbeck does not teach that a mounting clip as the connection device.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 1 that the connection device (1) is a mounting clip (Col 7, lines 30-32; wherein engagement clip 13 mounts the connection device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection device of Schwimmbeck to be a mounting clip, in order to more easily and securely mount the connection device to a part (Aoki Col. 8, lines 62-67).
Schwimmbeck as modified by Aoki discloses the claimed invention except for a wall thickness of at most 10 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a wall thickness of at most 10 mm in order to optimize available space for other components while maintaining device strength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 13, Schwimmbeck teaches a wall thickness of the connection device in a receiving direction of the cable sleeve (wherein the flange 10 has a wall thickness).
Schwimmbeck does not teach that a mounting clip as the connection device.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 1 that the connection device (1) is a mounting clip (Col 7, lines 30-32; wherein engagement clip 13 mounts the connection device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection device of Schwimmbeck to be a mounting clip, in order to more easily and securely mount the connection device to a part (Aoki Col. 8, lines 62-67).
Schwimmbeck as modified by Aoki discloses the claimed invention except for a wall thickness of at least 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a wall thickness of at least 0.5 mm in order to improve the strength of the connection piece and prevent breakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 16, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 the connection device (10).
Schwimmbeck does not teach the connection device comprises one or more attachment clips for mounting the connection device on the part.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 1 the connection device (1) comprises one or more attachment clips (13) for mounting the connection device on the part (Col. 7, lines 30-32; wherein 13 is an engagement clip to be mounted on a part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed invention of Schwimmbeck with the attachment clip of Aoki in order to facilitate the stable mounting of the connection device onto an applicable part (Aoki Col. 8, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 17, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 a cable sleeve (7) received in an opening which holds it (wherein 7 is received and held in an opening of flange 10).
Schwimmbeck does not teach that the opening clamps the cable sleeve.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 1 that the opening (formed by recesses 9 and 23) clamps the cable sleeve (2; wherein the opening formed by recesses 9 and 23 in pieces 3 and 4 is clamped when fitted together with engagement frame pieces 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed invention of Schwimmbeck to clamp the cable sleeve with the opening, in order to hold the cable sleeve within the connection device in a more stable manner.
Regarding claim 19, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 a method for assembling a cable sleeve assembly (1) with one or more cables (cable set 2) having a connector attached thereto ([0002]; wherein plug connectors can be attached to the cables), the method comprising:
providing a cable sleeve assembly (1) according to claim 1;
guiding one or more cables (2) having a connector attached thereto ([0002]), at least partially through the cable sleeve (7);
and connecting the connection device (10) so as to substantially hold the cable sleeve within the opening (wherein cable sleeve 7 is held by an opening in flange 10).
Schwimmbeck does not teach connecting the connection device so as to clamp the cable sleeve in the opening.
However, Aoki teaches in figure 1 connecting the connection device (1) so as to clamp the cable sleeve (2) in the opening (wherein the connection device 1 clamps pieces 3 and 4 with recesses 9 and 23 around the tube 2 with engagement pieces 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of assembling a cable sleeve assembly of Schwimmbeck to include the process of clamping the clamping the cable sleeve in Aoki, in order to hold the cable sleeve within the connection device in a more stable manner.
Regarding claim 20, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 3 that the method further comprises receiving and substantially holding the cable sleeve (7) in the opening after guiding one or more cables (2) and before connecting the connection device (10; wherein the connection device is only assembled after the cable sleeve 7 and cables 2 have been guided through the opening).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwimmbeck (US 20180297542 A1) in view of Nakata (US 20020189838 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 a clip connection ([0022]; wherein latch connections 18 and 19 can be a clip connection).
Schwimmbeck does not teach a lever protruding away from the connection device.
However, Nakata teaches in figure 5 a lever (movable hook 20h) protruding away from the connection device ([0040]; wherein 20h protrudes away from the sidewalls 20a-1 on the main grommet body 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip connection of Schwimmbeck to include the lever of Nakata, in order to provide a movable component to easily attach and detach connection device components.
Schwimmbeck as modified by Nakata discloses the claimed invention except for the lever protruding away from the connection device by an angle between 20 degrees to 70 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an angle range of 20 degrees to 70 degrees to prevent strain on the lever while still maximizing available space for components surrounding the lever, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwimmbeck (US 20180297542 A1) in view of Ehmann (US 20180145493 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 an opening (wherein flange 10 accommodates the cable sleeve 7 in an opening), one or more cables (cable set 2), and a connector ([0002]; wherein a plug connector can be attached to the cables).
Schwimmbeck does not teach a maximum dimension of the opening in the assembled state is smaller than a minimum dimension of a connector attached to the one or more cables seen in a plane projecting through the opening.
However, Ehmann teaches in figure 3 a maximum dimension of the opening in the assembled state is smaller than a minimum dimension of a connector (plug 11) attached to the one or more cables (1) seen in a plane projecting through the opening (wherein the opening of the device 6 when assembled is less than the dimension of plug 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a connector to the cables of Schwimmbeck and ensure the opening is smaller than the connector, in order to allow more electrical components to be accommodated into the cable sleeve assembly and ensure their placement on one side of the connection device.
Regarding claim 18, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 that the cable sleeve assembly (1) comprises one or more cables ([0001]; wherein 2 is at least one cable or a cable set) received in the cable sleeve (7), and the one or more cables having a connector attached thereto ([0002]; wherein a plug connector can be attached to the cables).
Schwimmbeck does not teach one or more cables having a connector attached thereto and wherein a maximum dimension of the opening is smaller than a minimum dimension of the connector seen in a plane projecting through the opening.
However, Ehmann teaches in figure 3 one or more cables (1) having a connector (plug 11) attached thereto and wherein a maximum dimension of the opening is smaller than a minimum dimension of the connector seen in a plane projecting through the opening (wherein the opening of the device 6 when assembled is less than the dimension of plug 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a connector to the cables of Schwimmbeck and ensure the opening is smaller than the connector, in order to allow more electrical components to be accommodated into the cable sleeve assembly and ensure their placement on one side of the connection device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwimmbeck (US 20180297542 A1) in view of Carchano (FR 3013524 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Schwimmbeck teaches in figure 1 a cable sleeve (7) and connection device (10).
Schwimmbeck does not teach that the cable sleeve comprises a relatively flexible material, preferably comprising a deformable material, more preferably comprising rubber, such as ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (EPDM), and wherein the connection device comprises a relatively rigid material.
However, Carchano teaches in figure 6 that the cable sleeve (10) comprises a relatively flexible material, preferably comprising a deformable material, more preferably comprising rubber, such as ethylene-propylene-diene rubber (EPDM) ([0007] of the English translation; wherein the flexible sleeve 10 is EPDM), and wherein the connection device (socket 40 with rings 30) comprises a relatively rigid material ([0012] of the English translation; wherein socket 40 and rings 30 are a thermoplastic material more rigid than the flexible body 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable sleeve and connection device of Schwimmbeck to be composed of the materials of Carchano, in order to allow flexibility in the placement of the cable and cable sleeve and provide rigid protection of the connection device.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nagayasu (US 20140020952 A1), Hartman (US 8791367 B2), and Kreuzer (US 20160380418 A1).
Nagayasu teaches cable with a protective sleeve made of EPDM and attached to a connection device mounted onto a vehicle part.
Hartman teaches a connection split into two pieces, able to be mounted and attached to a sleeve or tube, and including movable hooks to attach and detach the connection device.
Kreuzer teaches a protective pipe with protrusions fitted into a connection device of two pieces clipped together, able to accommodate cables.
The above references are considered of particular relevance to the claimed invention but cannot
be considered to teach the limitations or combined to being obvious to a person skilled in the art to
disclose the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL MARIE THAYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0134. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th/F 7:30-5:00.
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 at (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 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.
/ABIGAIL MARIE THAYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights