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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on December 20, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohr et al (US 9,716,374; hereinafter Rohr) in view of Safran Aircraft Engines (FR 3068526; cited in the IDS; hereinafter Safran).
Regarding claim 1, Rohr discloses an electric-power harness (100) for aircraft, comprising a plurality of cables (see figure 1), where each cable (see figure 1) comprises, radially from the inside to the outside: a conducting core (112); a first layer (120) of semiconductor material; an insulating layer (104); and a second layer (118) of semiconductor material; but Rohs lacks the harness further comprises a shared shielding placed in electrical contact with the second layers of semiconductor material of each cable. Safran teaches a cable harness (10) comprising a plurality of cables (18); each cable (18; see figure 4) comprises, radially from the inside to the outside: a conducting core (23); a layer (25) of semiconductor material and a shared shielding (20) placed in electrical contact with the layer of semiconductor material of each cable (paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to make Rohr’s electric-power harness with a shared shielding placed in electrical contact with the second layers of semiconductor material of each cable as taught by Safran to provide means for improving the electromagnetic shielding of the harness.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein the harness (100) further comprises a protective jacket (106) arranged tightened radially around the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein the harness (100), wherein the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4) is arranged in electrical contact with the second layer (118) of each cable (see figure 1) over a substantially equal contact surface for each of the cables (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein the harness (100), wherein the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran) comprises a single shielding layer (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4) placed radially around the cables (see figure 1) of the harness (100).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein the harness (100) wherein each cable (see figure 1) comprises an individual shielding layer (20; as taught by Safran), where the individual shielding layers (20; as taught by Safran) are kept in mutual electrical contact (as taught by Safran).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein the harness (100) wherein the cables (see figure 1) are arranged substantially parallel to each other, aligned along a direction perpendicular to their principal elongation direction, where the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4) is woven intercrossed around each of the cables (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), having an electrical resistance of the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4) between two ends of the harness (100); but lacks the resistance being between 0.1 mΩ and 100 mΩ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to make the electrical resistance of the shared shielding between two ends of the harness between 0.1 mΩ and 100 mΩ to improve the resistance of the wire harness. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding claim 8, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein the second layer (118) of each cable is made of a semiconductor material having an electrical resistivity; but lacks the resistivity being between 10 Ωm and 100Ωm . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to make the electrical resistivity of the second layer between 10mΩ and 100 mΩ to improve resistance of the wire harness. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding claim 9, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), wherein near at least one end (see figure 1) of the harness (10), each cable (see figure 1) comprises an individual shielding layer (20; as taught by Safran) over an end segment (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), having an electrical resistance of the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4) between two ends of the harness (100); but lacks the resistance being between 1 mΩ and 20 mΩ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to make the electrical resistance of the shared shielding between two ends of the harness between 1 mΩ and 20 mΩ to improve the resistance of the wire harness. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Regarding claim 11, the modified Rohr discloses the harness (100), having an electrical resistance of the shared shielding (20; as taught by Safran; see figure 4) between two ends of the harness (10) ; but lacks the resistance being between 3 mΩ and 10 mΩ. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to make the electrical resistance of the shared shielding between two ends of the harness between 3mΩ and 10 mΩ to improve the resistance of the wire harness. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hagi (US 11,745,674), Shirai et al (US 11,691,577), Kogo (US 11,636,958), Yamaguchi et al (US 10,414,352), Malloy et al (US 10,357,933) and Koliatene et al (US 10,090,080) disclose a wire harness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Angel R. Estrada at telephone number (571) 272-1973. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:30am -5:00pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Imani N. 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 USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000.
August 27, 2026
/ANGEL R ESTRADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
