DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character 51, present in figures 3-5, and 7, is missing from the description.
Reference character 52, present in figures 3-5, and 7, is missing from the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/940727.
18/893,895 (Current Application)
18/940,727
A routing structure comprising:
a first fixing portion fixed to a vehicle body of a vehicle;
a second fixing portion fixed to a slide body that moves along a vehicle front-rear direction at an opening provided in a roof of the vehicle body;
an exterior member having a first end portion held by the first fixing portion and a second end portion held by the second fixing portion;
an electric wire disposed inside the exterior member; and
an urging member disposed inside the exterior member and having a curved portion curved in a vehicle front-rear direction between the first end portion and the second end portion of the exterior member.
A routing structure comprising:
a first fixing part fixed to a vehicle body of a vehicle;
a second fixing part fixed to a slide body that moves along a vehicle front-rear direction with respect to an opening provided in a roof of the vehicle body;
an exterior member having a first end portion held by the first fixing part and a second end portion held by the second fixing part;
an electric wire inserted through the exterior member; and
a biasing member inserted through the exterior member and forming a curved portion curved in the vehicle front-rear direction between the first end portion and the second end portion of the exterior member, wherein
the second fixing part is disposed above the first fixing part in a vehicle up-down direction, and
the first fixing part and the second fixing part hold the first end portion and the second end portion such that the curved portion is inclined with respect to the vehicle up-down direction when viewed from the vehicle front-rear direction.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20120168225 A1), in view of Nishijima et al. (US 20070107926 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Satou teaches “A routing structure comprising:
a first fixing portion fixed to a vehicle body of a vehicle (see component 11, Satou, Figure 2);
a second fixing portion fixed to a slide body that moves along a vehicle front-rear direction (see component 12, Satou, Figure2);
an exterior member having a first end portion held by the first fixing portion and a second end portion held by the second fixing portion (see component 31, Satou, Figure 2);
an electric wire disposed inside the exterior member (electric wires, see Satou, paragraph 0029); and
an urging member disposed inside the exterior member and having a curved portion curved in a vehicle front-rear direction between the first end portion and the second end portion of the exterior member (spring member bent in a U-shape, see Satou, paragraph 0034).”
Satou does not teach “at an opening provided in a roof of the vehicle body.”
However, Nishijima teaches “at an opening provided in a roof of the vehicle body (see Nishijima, see Nishijima, paragraph 0059).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt the translating wire harness comprising a tensioning member as taught by Satou to be used in the sliding roof of a vehicle body as taught by Nishijima, to better guide the wires along the translating path and transfer load that would be applied to the wires into the tensioning member instead, decreasing fatigue in the wires, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Satou, Figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Satou, in view of Nishijima teaches “The routing structure according to claim 1.” Satou additionally teaches “the slide body moves in a vehicle vertical direction in addition to the vehicle front-rear direction between a fully closed position where the slide body closes the opening and a fully open position where the slide body opens the opening (see Satou, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1),
a distance to the second end portion from the first end portion at the fully closed position along the vehicle vertical direction is a first distance (see Satou, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1),
a distance to the second end portion from the first end portion at the fully open position along the vehicle vertical direction is a second distance different from the first distance (see Satou, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1), and
the urging member has the curved portion having a curved shape whose diameter is the first distance, or has the curved portion having a curved shape whose diameter is the second distance (see Satou, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt the translating wire harness comprising a tensioning member as taught by Satou to be used in the sliding roof of a vehicle body as taught by Nishijima, to better guide the wires along the translating path and transfer load that would be applied to the wires into the tensioning member instead, decreasing fatigue in the wires, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
351
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Satou, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al. (US 20120168225 A1), in view of Nishijima et al. (US 20070107926 A1) and Miyamoto et al. (US 20030100214 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Satou, in view of Nishijima teaches “The routing structure according to claim 2.” Satou additionally teaches “a radius value of the arc shape is determined such that the urging member has a curved shape having the first distance as a diameter when the urging member is folded back, or determined such that the urging member has a curved shape having the second distance as a diameter when the urging member is folded back (see Satou, Figure 2, Annotation Set 1) .”
Satou in view of Nishijima does not teach “the urging member is a plate-like member,
a cross-sectional shape, of the urging member, orthogonal to an axis direction of the urging member is an arc shape.”
However, Miyamoto teaches “the urging member is a plate-like member,
a cross-sectional shape, of the urging member, orthogonal to an axis direction of the urging member is an arc shape (see component 29, Miyamoto, Figure 6).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt the translating wire harness comprising a tensioning member as taught by Satou to be used in the sliding roof of a vehicle body as taught by Nishijima, to better guide the wires along the translating path and transfer load that would be applied to the wires into the tensioning member instead, decreasing fatigue in the wires, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the tensioning member having a circular cross section as taught by Satou with a tensioning member having a rectangular cross section, forming a plate-like shape as taught by Miyamoto, to better resist a twisting moment on the wire harness, only allowing the harness to bend in a way that produces the desired radius, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image3.png
427
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Miyamoto, Figure 6
Regarding claim 4, Satou, in view of Nishijima and Miyamoto teaches “The routing structure according to claim 1.” Miyamoto additionally teaches “the urging member is located radially inside relative to the electric wire at the curved portion (see component 29, Miyamoto, Figure 5).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt the translating wire harness comprising a tensioning member as taught by Satou to be used in the sliding roof of a vehicle body as taught by Nishijima, to better guide the wires along the translating path and transfer load that would be applied to the wires into the tensioning member instead, decreasing fatigue in the wires, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the tensioning member having a circular cross section as taught by Satou with a tensioning member having a rectangular cross section, forming a plate-like shape as taught by Miyamoto, to better resist a twisting moment on the wire harness, only allowing the harness to bend in a way that produces the desired radius, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image4.png
443
651
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Miyamoto, Figure 5
Regarding claim 5, Satou in view of Nishijima and Miyamoto teaches all of the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1, except “the routing structure includes the two urging members, and
one of the urging members is located radially inside relative to the electric wire, and the other of the urging members is located radially outside relative to the electric wire at the curved portion.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second tensioning member to increase the amount of force that the wire harness can take, protecting the wires inside, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the duplicate tensioning member on the radially opposite side of the wires within the wire harness, since it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6, Satou in view of Nishijima and Miyamoto teaches all of the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1, except “the urging member is located radially outside relative to the electric wire at the curved portion.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the tensioning member on the radially opposite side of the wires within the wire harness, since it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references all disclose vehicle wire harnesses:
Sekino et al. (US 20170297514 A1)
Kogure et al. (US 20070025061 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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.
/JRC/
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights