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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to Applicant’s Reply filed on April 23, 2026. Claim 16 is canceled and Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN MADE FINAL.
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 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. 214450746 (CN 746) in view of US Patent No. 4,864,082 to Ono et al. (Ono).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
523
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: CN 746 discloses a wire harness fixing device, comprising: a bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) adapted to accommodate a wire harness and including [one pair of] locking parts (See Annotated Fig. C) formed in the bracket . . . a locking component (See Annotated Fig. A) installed in the bracket and engaged with the locking part, a wire pressing portion (See Annotated Fig. A) is formed on the locking component and adapted to press and hold the wire harness in the bracket.
CN 746 does not disclose multiple pairs of locking parts formed in the bracket, the multiple pairs of locking parts are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the bracket. First, Ono teaches the idea of an elongated harness (1) that includes multiple areas where the locking component (6) is installed in the bracket. Such a configuration enables a user to secure the wires along the longitudinal length of the harness to ensure the wires are securely installed within the harness. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of CN 746 by using an elongated harness with multiple wire locking areas similar to that taught by Ono to secure the wires along the longitudinal length of the harness to ensure the wires are securely installed within the harness.
Second, CN 746 discloses only one pair of locking parts formed in the bracket but does not disclose multiple pairs of locking parts formed in the bracket, the multiple pairs of locking parts are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the bracket. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the essential working part to provide multiple pairs of locking parts formed in the bracket, the multiple pairs of locking parts are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the bracket. Here's why:
Courts have held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Here, duplicating the locking pair along the longitudinal length of the harness, a length taught by Ono, would provide additional wire securement areas along the bracket without producing any new and unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of invention to duplicate the essential pair of locking parts to provide multiple pairs of locking parts to secure the wires along the longitudinal length of the harness to ensure the wires are securely installed within the harness.
Regarding Claim 2: CN 746 discloses a wire harness fixing device according to claim 1, wherein the wire pressing portion defines a hollow inner cavity (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 3: CN 746 discloses a wire harness fixing device according to claim 2, wherein the hollow inner cavity is at least partially defined by a bottom plate (See Annotated Fig. A) adapted to press against the wire harness.
Regarding Claim 4: CN 746 discloses a wire harness fixing device according to claim 2, wherein the bottom plate (See Annotated Fig. A) is adapted to elastically deform when pressing the wire harness. (See translation, p. 5, lines 33-34)
Regarding Claim 17: CN 746 does not disclose multiple locking components or corresponding pairs of locking parts. However, for the same reasons as those discussed in the rejection of Claim 1, such limitations would have been obvious and as such CN 746 in view of Ono teaches a wire harness fixing device according to claim 1 wherein the wire harness fixing device comprises multiple locking components, each locking component being engaged with a corresponding pair of locking parts.
Regarding Claim 18: CN 746 discloses a wire harness fixing device according to claim 1, wherein the bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) is an integral molded piece. (See generally Annotated Fig. A)
Regarding Claim 19: CN 746 discloses a wire harness fixing device, comprising: a bracket (See Annotated Fig. A) adapted to accommodate a wire harness and including [one pair of] locking parts (See Annotated Fig. C) formed in the bracket . . . a locking component (See Annotated Fig. A) installed in the bracket and engaged with at least one locking part (See Annotated Fig. C) . . . a wire pressing portion (See Annotated Fig. A) is formed on the locking component and adapted to press and hold the wire harness in the bracket; and a wire harness (1) arranged between the wire pressing portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the at least one locking part (See Annotated Fig. A).
CN 746 does not disclose multiple pairs of locking parts formed in the bracket, the multiple pairs of locking parts are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the bracket. However, for the same reasons discussed above in the rejection of Claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of CN 746 by using an elongated harness with multiple wire locking areas similar to that taught by Ono to secure the wires along the longitudinal length of the harness to ensure the wires are securely installed within the harness.
Second, CN 746 discloses only one pair of locking parts formed in the bracket but does not disclose multiple pairs of locking parts formed in the bracket, the multiple pairs of locking parts are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the bracket. However, for the same reasons discussed above in the rejection of Claim 1, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the essential working part to provide multiple pairs of locking parts formed in the bracket, the multiple pairs of locking parts are spaced apart in a longitudinal direction of the bracket.
Regarding Claim 20: CN 746 discloses a wiring harness assembly of claim 19, wherein a hollow inner cavity (See Annotated Fig. A) is formed in the wire pressing portion, and a bottom plate (See Annotated Fig. A) of the inner cavity is elastically deformable by the wire harness (1) with the wire harness arranged in the wire harness fixing device. (See translation, p. 5, lines 33-34)
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-15 and 21 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches a main body with two insertion holes and a pair of side plates respectively adjacent the two insertion holes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 4881705, 5820048.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights