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: first and second fixing parts in claim 1.
Claim 4 describes the structure of fixing parts as having support surfaces.
First two paragraphs on page 7 of Applicant’s Specification also describes the structure of fixing parts.
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) 1-4 is/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 discloses a routing structure (Satou, Fig. 1, wire routing structure underneath seat) comprising: a first fixing part (Satou, 11 in Fig. 1c having support surfaces shown in Fig. 5) fixed to a vehicle body (Satou, 5 in Fig. 1) of a vehicle (Satou, paragraph 0058, the structure is for a vehicle); a second fixing part (Satou, 12 in Fig. 1c having support surfaces shown in Fig. 5) fixed to a slide body (Satou, Fig. 1, sliding seat) that moves along a vehicle front-rear direction (Satou, Fig. 1a, X1 direction); an exterior member (Satou, 26 in Fig. 3) having a first end portion held by the first fixing part and a second end portion held by the second fixing part (Satou, Fig. 1b, fixed at two ends p1 and p2); an electric wire (Satou, 21/22 in Fig. 3) inserted through the exterior member; and a biasing member (Satou, 24 in Fig. 3) 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 (Satou, Fig. 1a), wherein the second fixing part is disposed above the first fixing part in a vehicle up-down direction (Satou, Fig. 1c, 12 above 11), 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 (Satou, Fig. 1b-1c, inclined with respect to Y-direction that is the up-down direction).
Satou fails to disclose with respect to an opening provided in a roof of the vehicle body.
Nishijima teaches with respect to an opening provided in a roof of the vehicle body (Nishijima, paragraph 59, wire routing structure can be used in a sliding roof panel of a car, which would have an opening; and can be used on a slidable structure against a base having an opening).
Nishijima is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle wiring structure for sliding bodies including doors (Satou also teaches the wire routing structure can be used in doors) as Satou.
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 structure as taught by Satou to incorporate the teachings of Nishijima with a reasonable expectation of success and either use the routing structure of Satou in a sliding roof such that the sliding roof moves with respect of an opening or have a sliding roof in the vehicle of Satou such that the seat can move with respect to the roof opening. Doing so provides improved wiring efficiency and saves wiring space (Satou, paragraph 9) for a potential sliding roof wiring structure; having a sliding roof in the vehicle of Satou also provides added ventilation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Satou in view of Nishijima teaches the routing structure according to claim 1, wherein an inclination angle of the curved portion with respect to the vehicle up-down direction is an angle that increases a radius of the curved portion as compared with that in a case where the curved portion is not inclined (Satou, Fig. 1 and paragraph 27, inclined so that the distance between the ends is greater and therefore the radius is greater).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Satou in view of Nishijima teaches the routing structure according to claim 1, wherein the first fixing part holds the first end portion at a first position in a vehicle width direction, and the second fixing part holds the second end portion at a second position different from the first position in the vehicle width direction (Satou, Fig. 1b-1c, Z is the width direction, the two ends are been hold at two different positions along the Z or width direction).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Satou in view of Nishijima teaches the routing structure according to claim 1, wherein the first fixing part has a first support surface (Satou, Fig. 5, horizontal surface of 11 supporting first end p1) inclined with respect to the vehicle up-down direction (Satou, Fig. 5, the surface is horizontal, therefore inclined with respect to the up-down direction Y), and supports the first end portion by the first support surface (Satou, Fig. 5), and the second fixing part has a second support surface (Satou, Fig. 5, horizontal surface of 12 supporting first end p2) inclined with respect to the vehicle up-down direction (Satou, Fig. 5, the surface is horizontal, therefore inclined with respect to the up-down direction Y), and supports the second end portion by the second support surface (Satou, Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satou in view of Nishijima as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20080142260 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Satou in view of Nishijima teaches the routing structure according to claim 4, but fails to teach the first fixing part and the second fixing part are disposed such that the first support surface and the second support surface face each other when viewed from the vehicle front-rear direction.
Yamaguchi teaches the first fixing part and the second fixing part are disposed such that the first support surface and the second support surface face each other when viewed from the vehicle front-rear direction (Yamaguchi, Fig. 5, fixing parts 3 and 4 facing each other in the right-side configuration of Fig. 5).
Nishijima is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle wiring structure for sliding bodies as Satou in view of Nishijima.
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 structure as taught by Satou in view of Nishijima to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success and position the fixing parts such that their support surfaces face each other. Doing so allows the routing structure to occupy less space when appropriate and therefore save installation space.
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 wire routing structure with inclined curvature.
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