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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 330, 340, 350 (see paragraph [0048]); 1000 (see paragraph [0088]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0039], line 3, “Frame movement 150” should be replaced with --Frame 150 movement--.
In paragraph [0044], line 1, “140” (second occurrence) should be replaced with --130--.
In paragraph [0053], line 11, “400” should be replaced with --410--.
In paragraph [0087], line 2, “1100” should be replaced with --1000--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “connections,” should be replaced with --connections; and--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giftthaler et al. (EP 3 789 782 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Giftthaler et al. discloses a method for testing wire harnesses, comprising: moving a plurality of wire harness assembly stations (see Fig. 1) along a first track (see annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the first track comprises a loop (see Fig. 1), and wherein a first wire harness assembly station comprises a frame (element 10, Fig. 1) supporting at least one cable connector (element 22, Fig. 1), a set of cables (element 18, Fig. 2) connected to the cable connector, and a test point associated with the set of cables (see Fig. 1); when the first wire harness assembly station passes a first position along the first track, initiate a physical connection between a test adapter (element 28, Fig. 1) of an electrical testing unit (element 16, Fig. 1), and the test point associated with the set of cables (see Abstract and Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the test adapter starts at an initial position and moves along a second track (see annotated Fig. 1 below) during the physical connection with the test point (see Fig. 1); and disconnecting the test adapter and the test point when the electrical testing unit completes a test program to verify electrical connections via the test adapter and the test point (see par. [0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Giftthaler et al. discloses a method, further comprising: when a second wire harness assembly station (see Fig. 1) passes the first position, initiate a physical connection between the test adapter and a test point associated with a second wire harness (element 18, Fig. 2) at the second wire harness assembly station, and execute a second test program by the electrical testing unit (see Abstract and Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giftthaler et al. (EP 3 789 782 A1) in view of Aramaki et al. (US 11,776,713).
Regarding claim 1, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system for testing wire harnesses (see Fig. 1), comprising: a first track (see annotated Fig. 1 above) defining an area for assembling wire harnesses; a driving element (i.e., inherent feature in order to move the building boards) connected to a frame (element 10, Fig. 1) supporting a wire harness assembly (element 18, Fig. 2), wherein the driving element is configured to move the frame along the first track, and wherein the wire harness assembly comprises a cable connector (element 22, Fig. 1) electrically connected to a set of cables, and a test point associated with the set of cables; a second track (see annotated Fig. 1 above) defining a travel path for a test adapter (element 28, Fig. 1), wherein the test adapter is associated with an electrical testing unit for verifying electrical connections, a computing device comprising a processor and a memory (i.e., inherent features to automatically carry out a predeterminable test routine) configured to cause the computing device to: connect the test adapter and the test point, execute, by the electrical testing unit, a test program (i.e., a predeterminable test routine) associated with the wire harness assembly, and disconnect the test adapter and the test point (see par. [0028]).
Even assuming, arguendo without conceding, that Giftthaler et al. does not disclose the driving element being a motor, Aramaki et al. shows that utilizing a motor as a driving element for moving the frame is well known in the art (see col. 11, lines 25-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as improved conveyance of the harnesses to be tested.
Regarding claim 2, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein the test program occurs while the frame moves along the first track, and the test adapter moves along the second track (see Abstract and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein the computing device is further configured to cause the test adapter to move between a retracted position (i.e., upwards in the vertical direction) and extended position (i.e., downwards in the vertical direction), wherein the test adapter is connected to the test point in the extended position, and disconnected from the test point in the retracted position (see pars.[0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein, when the frame passes a first position along the first track, the test adapter matches a speed of the frame, and becomes aligned with the test point (see Abstract and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein, test adapter returns to a starting position on the second track after being disconnected from the test point (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein the computing device is configured to disconnect the test adapter and the test point when the test program is completed (see par. [0028] and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein a testing unit (element 16, Fig. 1) is positioned on or around a perimeter of the frame (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein the driving element is further connected to a second frame (element 10, Fig. 1) supporting a second wire harness assembly (element 18, Fig. 2), wherein the driving element is configured to drive the second frame along the first track (see Abstract and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 17, Giftthaler et al. discloses a system, wherein the computing device is further configured to: execute a second test program to test the second wire harness assembly (see Abstract and Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giftthaler et al. (EP 3 789 782 A1) in view of Aramaki et al. (US 11,776,713) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 above, and further in view of Young et al. (US 4,859,953).
Regarding claim 14, although Giftthaler et al. does not appear to disclose the testing system being provided on a table, Young et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. By placing the first track and the second track on a table, support is provided for the structure in a simple and cost effective way.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giftthaler et al. (EP 3 789 782 A1) in view of Aramaki et al. (US 11,776,713) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 above, and further in view of Schmier, II et al. (US 10,996,286).
Regarding claim 15, although Giftthaler et al. does not appear to disclose the computing device configured to receive the test program from a remote computing device, and upload the test program to the electrical testing unit, Schmier, II et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art (see col. 10, lines 22-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as allowing the system to receive test program updates remotely.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 4 of copending Application No. 18/945,190. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, and 4 of copending Application No. 18/945,190 contain all the features of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/945,190
1. A system for testing wire harnesses, comprising: a first track defining an area for assembling wire harnesses; a motor connected to a frame supporting a wire harness assembly, wherein the motor is configured to move the frame along the first track, and wherein the wire harness assembly comprises a cable connector electrically connected to a set of cables, and a test point associated with the set of cables; a second track defining a travel path for a test adapter, wherein the test adapter is associated with an electrical testing unit for verifying electrical connections; and a computing device comprising a processor and a memory configured to cause the computing device to: connect the test adapter and the test point, execute, by the electrical testing unit, a test program associated with the wire harness assembly, and
disconnect the test adapter and the test point.
1. A wire harness test system, comprising: a wire harness assembly supported by a frame connected to a motor, wherein the motor moves the frame along a first track; a test adapter movable along a second track, wherein the test adapter is associated with an electrical testing unit to test electrical connections; and a computing device comprising a processor and a memory comprising instructions configured to cause the computing device to: execute a test program while the wire harness assembly and the test adapter move, respectively, along the first track and the second track.
3. The wire harness test system of claim 1, further comprising instructions to cause the computing device to:
connect the test adapter and a test point associated with the wire harness assembly when the frame passes a first position along the first track; and disconnect the test adapter and the test point when the test program is completed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, 13, and 19 are 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.
No art has been found for a prior art rejection of claims 8-10 at this time.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights