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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa et al (Pub Num 2022/0102023, herein referred to as Hayakawa). Hayakawa discloses a composite cable (Figs 1-8) for usage with an vehicle, wherein the diameter of the signal line unit is reduced, while suppressing a decrease in resistance to noise (Paragraph 14). Specifically, with respect to claim 1, Hayakawa discloses a composite cable (10, Figs 4-6) comprising a plurality of power lines (2, 2) for supplying operating power to a device (ABS braking unit housing 95, i.e. motor and rotor 7, Paragraphs 34-35) to be controlled (Paragraph 51), a plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) for transmitting control signals for controlling the device (ABS braking unit housing 65, i.e. sensor and rotor 7, Paragraphs 34-35) to be controlled (Paragraph 55-56), a plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) for redundancy of the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3b, Paragraph 49) and a sheath (5) collectively covering the plurality of power lines (2, 2), the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c), and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d), wherein a signal line section (8, Figs 5A-5B), where the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) are twisted together (Paragraph 59) and the plurality of power lines (2, 2) are stranded together inside the sheath (5, Paragraph 60), and wherein the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) are collectively twisted in a spiral shape (Paragraph 60) around a central axis of the signal line section (8, Figs 5A-5B), wherein the device (ABS braking unit housing 95, 65 & 7, Paragraphs 34-35) to be controlled comprises an electrical braking unit (ABS braking unit, Paragraphs 34-35) that brakes a vehicle wheel (91a-94a, Paragraph 39) and wherein the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) transmits control signals for controlling the electrical brake unit (ABS braking unit, via ABS sensor (6), Fig 2, Paragraphs 34-35). With respect to claim 2, Hayakawa discloses that the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c & 3b, 3d) are arranged adjacent to each other in a circumferential direction around the central axis (Figs 5A-5B), and the plurality of second signal lines (2,2) is arranged adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction around the central axis (Figs 5A-5B). With respect to claim 4, Hayakawa disclose a composite harness (1, Fig 3) comprising a composite cable (10, Figs 4-6) comprising a plurality of power lines (2, 2) for supplying operating power to a device (95, i.e. motor) to be controlled (Paragraph 51), a plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) for transmitting control signals for controlling the device (65, i.e. sensor) to be controlled (Paragraph 55-56), a plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) for redundancy of the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3b, Paragraph 49) and a sheath (5) collectively covering the plurality of power lines (2, 2), the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c), and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d), wherein a signal line section (8, Figs 5A-5B), where the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) are twisted together (Paragraph 59) and the plurality of power lines (2, 2) are stranded together inside the sheath (5, Paragraph 60), and wherein the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) are collectively twisted in a spiral shape (Paragraph 60) around a central axis of the signal line section (8, Figs 5A-5B) and a connector (24 & 23, respectively) provided at an end of the composite cable (10, Paragraph 45). With respect to claim 6, Hayakawa discloses that one end of the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) are electrically connected to a control unit (i.e. ABS control unit, 904) of the electrical brake unit (ABS braking unit, Paragraphs 34-35). With respect to claims 7-13, Hayakawa discloses that the first plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) are electrically connected to a first transceiver (653a) and a first receiver (652a) provided in a control unit (ABS unit 904, Paragraph 95-96) of the electric brake unit (ABS unit, Paragraphs 34-35), while the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) are electrically connected to a second transceiver (653b) and a second receiver (653a) provided in the control unit (ABS unit, 904, Paragraphs 103-104).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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-AIA ) 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.
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.
A,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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (Pub Num 2022/0102023). Hayakawa discloses a composite cable (Figs 1-8) for usage with an vehicle, wherein the diameter of the signal line unit is reduced, while suppressing a decrease in resistance to noise (Paragraph 14), as disclosed with respect to claim 1 above. Specifically, with respect to claim 5, Hayakawa discloses that the signal line section (8) is split outside the sheath (5) into the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d), wherein a first connector (24) is provided at terminals of the plurality of power lines (2,2) and wherein a second connector (64) is provided at the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3c).
However, Hayakawa doesn’t necessarily disclose the composite harness wherein a first connector is provided at terminals of the plurality of power lines and the plurality of first signal lines, and wherein a second connector is provided at terminals of the plurality of second signal lines (claim 5).
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to modify the composite harness having the composite cable of Hayakawa to comprise the composite harness wherein a first connector is provided at terminals of the plurality of power lines and the plurality of first signal lines, and wherein a second connector is provided at terminals of the plurality of second signal lines as opposed to a first connector being provided at terminals of the plurality of power lines and a second connector being provided at the plurality of first signal lines and the plurality of second signal lines, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
Claim(s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (Pub Num 2022/0102023) in view of Applicant’s Own Admission of Prior Art of Hirotaka et al (JP Pat Num 2018-30463A, herein referred to as AOAPA). Hayakawa discloses a composite cable (Figs 1-8) for usage with an vehicle, wherein the diameter of the signal line unit is reduced, while suppressing a decrease in resistance to noise (Paragraph 14), as disclosed with respect to claims 1 and 6-8 above. Specifically, with respect to claims 14-17, Hayakawa discloses that the command signals received by the plurality of first signal lines (3a, 3c) and the plurality of second signal lines (3b, 3d) indicate a magnitude of braking force to be generated by the electric brake unit (ABS braking unit, via ABS sensor (6), Fig 2, Paragraphs 111-114).
However, Hayakawa doesn’t necessarily disclose the command signals received being identical (claims 14-17).
AOAPA teaches a known electric brake system (Figs 1-4 of Hirotaka) for vehicles, having duplication or redundancy of equipment for the purpose of improving reliability (see Paragraph 3 of Specification), while also saving space (see abstract of Hirotaka). Specifically, with respect to claims 14-17, AOAPA teaches an known electric brake system (Figs 1-3) for a vehicle (1) comprising a composite cable (LF 7 & 8, RF 7 & 8, LR 7 & 8, RR 7 & 8) Figs 1-2) comprising a plurality of power lines (LF 8, RF 8, LR 8, RR 8) for supplying operating power to a device (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R, respectively) to be controlled (Paragraphs 14-16), a plurality of signal lines (LF 7, RF 7, LR 7, RR 7) for transmitting control signals for controlling the device (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R, respectively) to be controlled (Paragraph 14-17), wherein the device (2L, 2R, 3L, 3R) to be controlled comprises an electrical braking unit (5) that brakes a vehicle wheel (Paragraph 16) and the plurality of signal lines (LF 7, RF 7, LR 7, RR 7) control signals for controlling the electrical brake unit (Fig 2, Paragraph 16), wherein the command signals received being identical (via thrust calculations, Paragraph 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of cables at the time the invention was made to modify the composite cable of Hayakawa to comprise the plurality of signal wires to command signals received to be identical configuration as taught by AOAPA because AOAPA teaches that such a configuration provides a known electric brake system (Figs 1-4 of Hirotaka) for vehicles, having duplication or redundancy of equipment for the purpose of improving reliability (see Paragraph 3 of Specification), while also saving space (see abstract of Hirotaka).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the applicant argues the following
A) Hayakawa does not disclose, either expressly or inherently, the claimed plurality of first signal lines and plurality of second signal lines configured to transmit control signals for controlling the electric brake unit.
B) The claimed arrangement is associated with the redundant control architecture of the electric brake unit and is not simply an arbitrary relocation of connectors. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Hayakawa in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
With respect to argument A, the examiner respectfully traverses. Clearly, as disclosed above, Hayakawa discloses the claimed plurality of first signal lines and plurality of second signal lines configured to transmit control signals for controlling the electric brake unit, as disclosed above. While Hayakawa discloses that the signal lines are connected to a ABS sensor, which is connected to an ABS control unit, which is connected to the braking unit itself (i.e. piston, caliper, etc.), the signals of the signal lines transmit signals to the ABS control unit, which control the actually braking unit itself (Paragraphs 37-39) and therefore anticipate claim 1.
In light of the above, the examiner respectfully submits that the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-13 is proper and just.
With respect to argument B, the examiner respectfully traverses. Clearly, as disclosed above, Hayakawa teaches all of the claimed invention, except the power conductors and the signal lines being connected to the same connector. Clearly, combining two separate connectors into a single connector is commonly utilized in the art of cables to simplify the connection of various wires, thereby saving assemble time, thereby resulting in less manufacturing cost, etc. The actual function of the connections is not germane to the configuration and therefore would not be a motivating factor for combining the connectors as the applicant has stated. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as stated above, simplifying the cable harness by reducing the number of connectors to be assembled is a common practice in the art of cables and doing such would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to modify the composite harness having the composite cable of Hayakawa to comprise the composite harness wherein a first connector is provided at terminals of the plurality of power lines and the plurality of first signal lines, and wherein a second connector is provided at terminals of the plurality of second signal lines as opposed to a first connector being provided at terminals of the plurality of power lines and a second connector being provided at the plurality of first signal lines and the plurality of second signal lines, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70
In light of the above, the examiner respectfully states the 35 USC 103(a) rejection of claim 5 is also proper and just.
Conclusion
The prior art 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 art in the present case, Hirotaka et al (JP Pat Num 2018-30463A, which discloses an known electrical brake unit utilizing a composite cable.
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 WILLIAM H MAYO III whose telephone number is (571)272-1978. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thurs (5:30a-3:00p) Fri 5:30a-2p (w/alternating Fridays off).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani Hayman can be reached on (571) 270-5528. 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.
/William H. Mayo III/
William H. Mayo III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
WHM III
October 1, 2026
