CTNF 18/852,762 CTNF 91980 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: “WIRE HARNESS FOR A VEHICLE” . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 8 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-37-02 The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDO (JP2009071981) in view of HATTORI (JPH-05-52323U) . Regarding Claim 1 . ANDO teaches, in Fig. 6-7, a wire harness for a vehicle, the wire harness comprising: a wire (W in Fig.1); and a wire fixing member that includes a holding portion (1) that holds the wire and a fixing portion (4) that is configured to be fixed to a vehicle by fastening a bolt (Background Art), wherein: the wire has a size of 50 sq or more (implicit as the wire is being used for an automobile so the size should be compatible to claimed size), but does not disclose the fixing portion includes a tube that is provided inside a through hole extending through the fixing portion, the tube includes: a hard tube portion that includes an insertion hole through which the bolt used for fastening is inserted and has a higher rigidity than the fixing portion; and an elastic portion that has a higher elasticity than the fixing portion, and the elastic portion is located between an outer circumferential surface of the hard tube portion and an inner circumferential surface of the through hole. HATTORI teaches, in Fig. 1-3, the fixing portion includes a tube (10) that is provided inside a through hole extending through the fixing portion, the tube includes: a hard tube portion (13) that includes an insertion hole (center hole) through which the bolt used for fastening is inserted and has a higher rigidity than the fixing portion ([0012]- to act as a stopper); and an elastic portion (11) that has a higher elasticity than the fixing portion ([0011]- has elastic body), and the elastic portion is located between an outer circumferential surface of the hard tube portion and an inner circumferential surface of the through hole (the hole made by 15/16 where 11 is placed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire harness as disclosed by ANDO with the tube as disclosed by HATTORI in order to provide an elastic rubber nut capable of preventing the loosening of a fastening bolt for a long time (HATTORI, abstract). Regarding Claim 5 . ANDO and HATTORI teaches the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the wire has a size of 200 sq or less (implicit as the wire is being used in vehicle as it is being used in the application) . Regarding Claim 6 . ANDO and HATTORI teaches the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein: the hard tube portion is constituted by a metal, and the elastic portion is constituted by rubber (HATTORI, [0011], [0012]). Regarding Claim 7 . ANDO and HATTORI teaches the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the elastic portion has a tubular shape surrounding the hard tube portion (HATTORI, see Fig. 1-3) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDO and HATTORI in view of ENDO (JP2007103196) . Regarding Claim 2 . ANDO and HATTORI teaches the wire harness according to claim 1, but does not teach the wire is connected to a motive power device that includes a travel driving motor. ENDO teaches, in Fig. 10, teach the wire is connected to a motive power device that includes a travel driving motor (see [description of reactor arrangement], page 11). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wire harness disclosed by ANDO and HATTORI with the motive power device as disclosed by ENDO in order to drive the wheel as it is known in the art. Regarding Claim 3 . ANDO, HATTORI, and ENDO teaches the wire harness according to claim 2, wherein the wire electrically connects the motive power device and a battery (See ENDO, Fig. 10). Regarding Claim 4 . ANDO, HATTORI, and ENDO teaches the wire harness according to claim 1, wherein the wire fixing member is disposed inside a compartment that houses a motive power device (Q1, Q2) that includes a travel driving motor (see ENDO, Fig. 10, Fig. 13, wire 380 is, at points, inside the drive device (20) and it would be normal to have the wire fixing member placed there so the wires do not deviate from their intended paths and the space occupied by the reactor can be reduced in the configuration of the drive device in which the boost converter, inverter and motor generator are integrated and miniaturized) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm. 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. /MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847 /Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/852,762 Page 2 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/852,762 Page 3 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/852,762 Page 4 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/852,762 Page 5 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/852,762 Page 6 Art Unit: 2847
Prosecution Insights