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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Neither Murata (US 10,974,668) nor Nachbauer (EP 0913889), nor their combination (arguendo), discloses or suggests a configuration in which the other end of the protective member is not covered by the molded body.
Further, neither Eshima '364 nor Yamamoto makes up for the deficiencies of the Examiner's urged combination of Murata and Nachbauer.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The reference Nachbauer discloses the amendment “in which the other end of the protective member is not covered by the molded body”, wherein shown in figure 4 of Nachbauer, the molded body (6) does not extend the length of the cable (1) and its jacket (translation page 4, lines 5-7) to an other end.
Applicant argues “there is no teaching or suggestion of only a potion near the one end portion of the protective member being covered, as defined by new dependent claim 18 , let alone any of the other newly-added dependent claims.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In figure 4 of Nachbauer, only a portion of one end of the cable (1) and its jacket (translation page 4, lines 5-7) is covered by the molded body 6. Regarding other newly-added dependent claims 9-20, please see the rejection below.
Claims 9 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1-3, 5-7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 10974668), in view of Nachbauer (EP 0913889).
Regarding claim 1, Murata teaches a wire harness (Fig 9), comprising:
a first cable (50) and a second cable (70), each having a plurality of wires;
a one-side connector (214) disposed at the end of the first cable;
and a protective member (70) covering at least a portion of the plurality of wires of the second cable.
Murata fails to teach that one end of the protective member is covered by a molded body together with the one-side connector, and wherein an other end of the protective member is not covered by the molded body.
However, Nachbauer teaches, in Fig.4, that one end of the protective member is covered by a molded body (6) together with the one-side connector (Fig 4; jacketed cable 1 and contact carrier 2 are enclosed by a molded protective body 6), and wherein an other end of the protective member is not covered by the molded body (Fig. 4; wherein the molded body 6 does not extend the length of the cable 1 and its jacket [translation page 4, lines 5-7] to an other end).
In the field of endeavor of electrical cables, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one-side connector side of Murata’s wire harness to incorporate the molded body of Nachbauer to cover the connector and sheath, wherein the reasons for this coupling apparatus are, “The result is a moisture-proof and tensile load- bearing coupling element, which with a low Effort and inexpensive to manufacture” (Nachbauer translation page 8, lines 17-18), and to not cover an other end of the protective member, in order to allow attachment and molding to other electronic components.
Regarding claim 2, Murata teaches that the protective member (70) comprises a cylindrical body that accommodates the plurality of wires of the second cable (Fig 9; Col. 6, lines 28-33; wherein a given example of exterior material 70 is a corrugated tube).
Regarding claim 3, Murata teaches that the protective member comprises a solid sheath covering the plurality of wires of the second cable (Fig 9; Col. 6, lines 28-33; wherein a given example of exterior material 70 is a sheet material).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that the limitations of the method steps reciting "wherein the protective member is welded to the molded body” are process limitations in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777Fo 2d 695,698 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 6, Murata teaches that the one-side connector has a plurality of terminals (46) and a connector housing (215) that holds the plurality of terminals (Fig 11).
It is noted that the limitations of the method steps reciting "wherein a portion of the connector housing covered by the molded body is welded to the molded body” are process limitations in a product claim and is treated in accordance with MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777Fo 2d 695,698 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See also MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Murata teaches that the first cable comprises the plurality of wires covered by a sheath (Fig 9).
Murata fails to teach that the molded body covers a portion at a one-side connector side in the sheath of the first cable.
However, Nachbauer teaches that the molded body (6) covers a portion at a one-side connector side in the sheath of the first cable (Fig 4, wherein cable 1 and contact carrier 2 are enclosed by a molded protective body 6).
In the field of endeavor of electrical cables, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second connector side of Murata’s wire harness to incorporate the molded body of Nachbauer covering the connector and sheath. The reasons for this coupling apparatus are, “The result is a moisture-proof and tensile load-bearing coupling element, which with a low Effort and inexpensive to manufacture” (Nachbauer).
Regarding claim 18, Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness with a protective member (70).
Murata does not teach wherein only a portion near the one end of the protective member is covered by a molded body.
However, Nachbauer teaches in figure 4 wherein only a portion near the one end of the protective member (translation page 5, lines 5-7; the jacket of cable 1) is covered by a molded body (6).
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 protective member of Murata to have a portion of one end of the protective member covered by the molded body, in order to allow flexibility for the second cable to attach to other components.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 11, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 10974668), in view of Nachbauer (EP 0913889), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 18 above, and further in view of Eshima (US 20200262364 A1).
Regarding claim 4, a modified Murata teaches that the plurality of wires of the second cable are connected to a sensor element that detects a physical quantity (Fig 9; Col. 5, lines 27-31; wherein the third connector 18 is connected to a device that is a sensor).
A modified Murata fails to teach that the sheath is integrally molded with a sealing member that seals the sensor element.
However, Eshima teaches that the sheath (34) is integrally molded with a sealing member, the urethane resin molding of sensor section housing (35a), that seals the sensor element (35; Fig 5A and paragraph [0059]).
In the field of endeavor of wire harnesses, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor section of Murata to incorporate Eshima’s use of a sealing member to integrally mold the sheath with the sensor. The reason for this configuration is to suppress water from the ingress from the gap between the sheath and the housing (Eshima, paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach wherein, within a molded body, the sheath of the first cable and the protective member are separated from each other, and a resin forming the molded body is interposed in a space between the sheath and the protective member.
However, Eshima teaches in figure 5A within a molded body, the sheath of the first cable (22) and the protective member (34) are separated from each other, and a resin forming the molded body is interposed in a space between the sheath and the protective member (see figure 5A; [0057]; wherein molded member 5 surrounding and separating the cables is made of resin).
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 wire harness of Murata to include a resin molded body separating the two cables, in order to secure the cables and improve insulation.
Regarding claim 11, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach wherein a shortest distance D2 from an outer circumferential surface of the sheath of the first cable to an outer circumferential surface of the molded body is greater than a distance D1 between the protective member and the sheath, and a shortest distance D3 from an outer peripheral surface of the protective member to the outer circumferential surface of the molded body is also greater than the distance D1.
However, Eshima teaches a shortest distance D2 from an outer circumferential surface of the sheath of the first cable (22) to an outer circumferential surface of the molded body (upper surface of 5) is greater than a distance D1 between the protective member (34) and the sheath, and a shortest distance D3 from an outer peripheral surface of the protective member to the outer circumferential surface of the molded body (bottom surface of 5) is also greater than the distance D1 (see Examiner figure 1 at the end of this section).
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 wire harness of Murata to include a resin molded body separating the two cables with the distances from the cable sheaths to the surface of the molded body being greater than the distance between the two cables, in order to secure the cables well within the body while maintaining insulation between the cables.
Regarding claim 14, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach wherein, within a molded body, the sheath of the first cable and the protective member are separated from each other.
However, Eshima teaches in figure 5A within a molded body (5), the sheath of the first cable (22) and the protective member (34) are separated from each other (see figure 5A).
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 wire harness of Murata to include the two cables separated within a molded body, in order to decrease interference between the cables.
Regarding claim 15, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach wherein a resin forming the molded body is interposed in a space between the sheath and the protective member.
However, Eshima teaches in figure 5A wherein a resin forming the molded body (5) is interposed in a space between the sheath (22) and the protective member (34; [0057]; wherein molded member 5 surrounding and separating the cables is made of resin).
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 wire harness of Murata to include a resin molded body separating the two cables, in order to secure the cables and improve insulation.
Regarding claim 16, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach wherein a shortest distance D2 from an outer circumferential surface of the sheath of the first cable to an outer circumferential surface of the molded body is greater than a distance D1 between the protective member and the sheath
However, Eshima teaches a shortest distance D2 from an outer circumferential surface of the sheath of the first cable (22) to an outer circumferential surface of the molded body (upper surface of 5) is greater than a distance D1 between the protective member (34) and the sheath (see Examiner figure 1 at the end of this section).
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 wire harness of Murata to include a resin molded body separating the two cables with the distance from the first cable sheath to the upper surface of the molded body being greater than the distance between the two cables, in order to secure the first cable well within the body while maintaining insulation between the two cables.
Regarding claim 17, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach a shortest distance D3 from an outer peripheral surface of the protective member to the outer circumferential surface of the molded body is also greater than the distance D1.
However, Eshima teaches a shortest distance D3 from an outer peripheral surface of the protective member (34) to the outer circumferential surface of the molded body (bottom surface of 5) is also greater than the distance D1 (see Examiner figure 1 at the end of this section).
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 wire harness of Murata to include a resin molded body separating the two cables with the distance from the protective member to the bottom surface of the molded body being greater than the distance between the two cables, in order to secure the second cable well within the body while maintaining insulation between the two cables.
Regarding claim 19, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach the protective member including a resin tube and wherein the resin tube and the sheath are separated from each other in the molded body, such that a resin forming the molded body is interposed between the resin tube and the sheath.
However, Eshima teaches in figure 5A the protective member (34) including a resin tube ([0058]; wherein 34 is configured with resin) and wherein the resin tube and the sheath (22) are separated from each other in the molded body (5), such that a resin forming the molded body ([0057]; wherein molded member 5 surrounding and separating the cables is made of resin) is interposed between the resin tube and the sheath (see figure 5A).
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 wire harness of Murata to include a resin molded body separating the two cables, in order to secure the cables and improve insulation, and to include a resin tube as the protective member, in order to allow integral molding of the molded body and resin tube to prevent the ingress of water (Eshima [0058]).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Figure 1 (annotated from Eshima figure 5A)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 10974668), in view of Nachbauer (EP 0913889), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 18 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (CN 114981126 A).
Regarding claim 8, a modified Murata teaches the wire harness (Fig 9) of claim 1, further comprising:
an other-side connector (12) on an other side of the first cable, and;
the plurality of wires of the second cable are connected to a wheel speed sensor that detects a rotation speed of the vehicle wheel (Fig 9; Col. 5, lines 27-31; wherein the third connector 18 is connected to a device that is a sensor).
A modified Murata fails to teach an attachment object to the one-side connector comprises a wheel-side control device located on a wheel side of a vehicle, and an attachment object to the other-side connector comprises a body-side control device located on a body side of the vehicle.
However, Yamamoto teaches an attachment object to the one-side connector (C2, C3, or C4) is a wheel-side control device located on a wheel side of a vehicle (Fig 1, wherein connectors C2, C3, or C4 are connected to wheel-side devices); and an attachment object to the other-side connector (C1) is a body-side control device located on a body side of the vehicle (Fig 1, wherein connector C1 is connected to a body-side control device).
In the field of endeavor of electrical wiring for vehicles, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata so that the first connector would be connected to a body-side device and the second connector to a wheel-side device, as in Yamamoto. This would improve vehicle safety by monitoring the wheel-speed of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 10974668), in view of Nachbauer (EP 0913889) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 18 above, and further in view of Ricky (JP 2020098771 A).
Regarding claim 12, a modified Murata teaches in figure 9 a wire harness, with a sheath of a first cable (50) and a protective member (70).
A modified Murata does not teach that the sheath of the first cable is thicker than the protective member.
However, Ricky teaches in figure 1 that the sheath (32 includes 32a and 32b) of the first cable (3) is thicker than the protective member (20b; wherein the first cable has a thicker double sheath 32 made of layers 32a and 32b).
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 sheath of the first cable of Murata to be thicker than the protective member, in order to allow the optimization of electrical performance in different cables.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 10974668), in view of Nachbauer (EP 0913889) and in view of Eshima (US 20200262364 A1) as applied to claims 4, 10, 11, 14-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Ricky (JP 2020098771 A).
Regarding claim 20, a modified Murata teaches a wire harness (Murata figure 9), with a sheath of a first cable (Murata figure 9; 50) and a resin tube (Eshima figure 5A; 34).
A modified Murata does not teach wherein the sheath of the first cable has a larger heat capacity than that of the resin tube.
However, Ricky teaches wherein the sheath (32a and 32b) of the first cable (3) has a larger heat capacity than that of the resin tube (translation [0024], wherein 20b is made of resin; wherein the double sheath layer 32 provides a larger heat capacity in having both layer 32a and layer 32b).
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 sheath of the first cable of Murata to have a higher heat capacity than the resin tube, in order to allow the optimization of electrical performance in different cables.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach "a length L1 of the sheath in a part covered by the molded body is longer than a length L2 of the protective member in a part covered by the molded body" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach "a length L1 of the sheath in a part covered by the molded body is longer than a length L2 of the protective member in a part covered by the molded body" in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims 1 and 12.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nakamura (US 20220093289 A1), Mochizuki (JP 2017076480 A), and Yamamoto (US 20200295546 A1).
Nakamura teaches a wire harness, with two cables in a vehicle configuration, a sheath, two opposite side connectors on the first cable, and a sensor attached to one cable.
Mochizuki teaches a wire harness, with a resin molded body connecting a cable and connector and a sheath on the cable.
Yamamoto teaches a wire harness, with two cables, each covered by sheaths, and a sensor attached to one cable.
None of the references, alone or in combination, teach all of the limitations for the claims including: “a length L1 of the sheath in a part covered by the molded body is longer than a length L2 of the protective member in a part covered by the molded body” as recited in claims 9 and 13.
Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the instant application claimed invention as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
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.
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
