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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: interior member in claims 1 and 12.
Paragraph 36 of Applicant’s Specification described the structure, “The interior member is a part which can be observed from an inner side of a vehicle in a state before the additional interior member is added.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda et al. (JP 2006262649 A) in view of Yamashita (US 20120000704 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsunoda discloses a vehicle wiring system (Tsunoda, Fig. 5), comprising: an interior member (Tsunoda, 30 in Fig. 5); an additional wiring member (Tsunoda, 1 in Fig. 1) disposed on the interior member from a side (Tsunoda, Fig. 5, side of layer 32); and an additional interior member (Tsunoda, 10 in Fig. 5) covering the additional wiring member from a side opposite to the interior member.
Tsunoda fails to disclose facing a vehicle interior and a side of the vehicle interior.
Yamashita teaches facing a vehicle interior and a side of the vehicle interior (Yamashita, paragraph 37, an unwoven fabric decorative layer is on the vehicle interior side; interior member of Tsunoda has layer 32 that is also nonwoven fabric as disclosed in the abstract; obvious to have that side facing the vehicle interior).
Yamashita is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle interior wiring system as Tsunoda.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Tsunoda to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita with a reasonable expectation of success and make the fabric side the side facing a vehicle interior. Doing so provides decorative layer visible to the interior and to the occupant for enhanced aesthetics and comfort when contact by people.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, further comprising a wiring member covered by the interior member from the side of the vehicle interior (Yamashita, Fig. 2, wiring member 20 on the inside or the side hidden from interior view).
Yamashita is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle interior wiring system as Tsunoda.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Tsunoda to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita with a reasonable expectation of success and have a wiring member covered by the interior member from the side of the vehicle interior. Doing so provides wiring for other additional vehicle components, protects the wiring from undesired interferences or damages.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, wherein the additional interior member is a sheet deformable along a surface shape of the interior member (Tsunoda, Fig. 1 and 5, capable of curving to fit the contour of the interior member).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, wherein the additional interior member is a member having rigidity to an extent of being able to form a space for locating (Tsunoda, Fig. 5, space between 10 and 32) the additional wiring member between the interior member and the additional interior member.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, wherein design texture of the surface of the additional interior member is a same as design texture of the surface of the interior member (Tsunoda, abstract, both can be nonwoven fabric therefore having same design texture).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of an edge of the additional interior member is along an edge of the interior member (Tsunoda, Fig. 1, edges of 10 extends along same directions as edges of interior member 30).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1,wherein the additional interior member includes an impact absorption layer (Tsunoda, Fig. 5, layer of 10 can absorbs some amount of impact).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, wherein the additional interior member is kept in a state of covering the additional wiring member by an adhesive layer (Tsunoda, Fig. 5, layer of 11) or a hook and loop fastener.
Regarding claim 12, Tsunoda discloses a vehicle additional wiring member, comprising: an additional wiring member (Tsunoda, 1 in Fig. 1) disposed on an interior member (Tsunoda, 30 in Fig. 5) ; and an additional interior member (Tsunoda, 10 in Fig. 5) covering the additional wiring member from a side opposite to the interior member.
Tsunoda fails to disclose facing a vehicle interior.
Yamashita teaches facing a vehicle interior (Yamashita, paragraph 37, an unwoven fabric decorative layer is on the vehicle interior side; interior member of Tsunoda has layer 32 that is also nonwoven fabric as disclosed in the abstract; obvious to have that side facing the vehicle interior).
Yamashita is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle interior wiring system as Tsunoda.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the member as taught by Tsunoda to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita with a reasonable expectation of success and make the fabric side the side facing a vehicle interior. Doing so provides decorative layer visible to the interior and to the occupant for enhanced aesthetics and comfort when contact by people.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatanaka (JP H11208310 A) and Davis et al. (US 6126228 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, wherein the additional wiring member includes a part (Tsunoda, part of wires 1 in Fig. 5), and the additional interior member includes a part (Tsunoda, part of 10 shown in Fig. 5).
The combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita fails to teach from a first edge part toward a second edge part of the interior member, wholly covering the part between the first edge part and the second edge part in the additional wiring member.
Hatanaka teaches a part from a first edge part toward a second edge part of the interior member (Hatanaka, see annotated Fig. 3, having the wires extend from one edge of the interior member – dashboard – to another edge).
Hatanaka is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle interior wiring system as Tsunoda in view of Yamashita.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Tsunoda in view of Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of Hatanaka with a reasonable expectation of success and have the wire extending from edge to edge. Doing so provides wiring for additional components on the dashboard or the instrument panel and prevents the wiring from interfere with other structure or aesthetics on the dashboard.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Annotated Fig. 3 from Hatanaka
Davis teaches wholly covering the part between the first edge part and the second edge part in the additional wiring member (Davis, Fig. 1-2 shows covering all the exposed wires, since the wires extend from edge to edge as taught by Hatanaka, it would be obvious after combination to wholly cover the part between the edges).
Davis is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle interior wiring system as Tsunoda in view of Yamashita and Hatanaka.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Tsunoda in view of Yamashita and Hatanaka to incorporate the teachings of Davis with a reasonable expectation of success and have wholly covering the part. Doing so provides maximum protection and aesthetics enhancements for the entire wiring system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funakura et al. (JP 2017121119 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tsunoda in view of Yamashita teaches the vehicle wiring system according to claim 1, but fails to teach a color of a surface of the additional interior member is a same type of color as a color of a surface of the interior member.
Funakura teaches a color of a surface of the additional interior member is a same type of color as a color of a surface of the interior member (Funakura, second to last paragraph on page 1 of machine translation, wire protector same color as the part it is mounted to).
Funakura is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of wiring and wiring cover as Tsunoda in view of Yamashita.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as taught by Tsunoda in view of Yamashita to incorporate the teachings of Funakura with a reasonable expectation of success and have same color for the two interior members. Doing so enhances the coherent design of the vehicle interior and prevents the system from distracting the vehicle user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the interior member is a liner covering a vehicle interior side of a pillar, and the additional interior member is an additional liner covering the liner from the side of the vehicle interior. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art is Ito et al. (WO 2025192640 A1), which discloses in Fig. 6 a pillar having interior member 32, additional interior member 40, and wires 39 between the two interior members. However, Ito et al. (WO 2025192640 A1) does not qualify as prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle interior wiring system with wire cover members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights