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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the phrases
-“an actuator disposed in a housing as a non-rotary member that houses a rotary member” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the actuator is “disposed in a housing”, the “non-rotary member”, the housing is the “non-rotary member”; or “as a non-rotary member” modifies the actuator, the housing, or the actuator/housing combination. It is also unclear whether the rotary member is housed by the housing or by the actuator. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
-The phrase “is to be provided between” does not clearly define a structural relationship. It is unclear whether the harness assembly must: be physically located between the actuator and connector, electrically connect the actuator and connector, be capable of being installed between them, or merely be intended for such use. The claim should state the required relationship directly, such as that the harness assembly is “configured to electrically connect” the actuator and connector, or that a first end is connected to the actuator and a second end is connected to the connector.
-“An end portion” and “another end portion” are unclear the claim does not clearly identify whether “thereof” refers to the wire harness, the protection tube, or the harness assembly. In addition, “another end portion” does not clearly establish whether the two end portions are opposite ends or merely different portions. The claim is therefore indefinite as to which component has the claimed end portions and how those portions relate to the actuator and connector.
- “a high-rigidity portion and a low-rigidity portion that is more flexible than the high-rigidity portion”. The claim does not specify the type of rigidity or flexibility being compared. For example, it is unclear whether the comparison concerns bending rigidity, torsional rigidity, tensile stiffness, compression stiffness; or some other mechanical property.
-“the wire harness is covered with the protection tube in the high-rigidity portion” and
“the wire harness is at least partially uncovered with the protection tube in the low-rigidity portion”
The phrase “uncovered with the protection tube” is grammatically and technically unclear. It is uncertain whether it means that the protection tube is absent, the protection tube terminates before the low-rigidity portion, only part of the circumference is exposed, only part of the axial length is covered; or the wire harness is exposed through an opening in the tube. The claim also does not establish whether the protection tube must be continuous across the high-rigidity portion or whether multiple tube sections are permitted.
“A position that avoids the harness assembly from being brought into contact” is indefinite
This is unclear because it does not specify the relevant position, the position relative to the rotary member, whether contact is avoided during assembly, normal operation, or all operating conditions, whether contact with any part of the rotary member is prohibited, whether incidental contact is permitted or whether the limitation applies to the entire harness assembly or only the wire harness.
The examiner suggests using the phrase “routed so as not to contact the rotary member.”
“by being bent at the low-rigidity portion when the other end portion is connected to the connector” is unclear whether the low-rigidity portion must actually be bent, bending is merely a capability of the harness assembly, the bending occurs during connection to the connector, bending occurs after connection, the connector causes the bending; or bending is required only in the final installed condition. It is also unclear whether the “other end portion” refers to the end portion connected to the connector.
The relationship between the low-rigidity portion, the bending operation, and avoidance of contact is therefore indefinite under § 112(b).
The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
Claims 2 and 7 are indefinite because the phrases:
-“at least partially uncovered with the protection tube” does not clearly identify the manner in which the wire harness is uncovered. It is unclear whether the protection tube is absent from part of the axial length of the low-rigidity portion, an opening through only part of the circumference of the protection tube, a longitudinal slit in the protection tube, a complete interruption or discontinuity in the protection tube; or some other form of exposure of the wire harness.
-“cut at at least a part of a periphery thereof” is also unclear. It is uncertain whether “periphery” refers to the circumferential wall of the tube, an axial end edge of the tube, the entire circumference, a portion of the tube wall; or a peripheral portion extending along the length of the tube.
Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite under § 112(b).
Claim 3 is indefinite because:
-The term “close to” is a relative term without an objective boundary. The claim does not specify:
1. the distance between the actuator-side end and the actuator;
2. the reference point on the actuator;
3. whether the distance is measured axially, radially, or along a curved path; or
4. the minimum or maximum distance required.
-the phrase “has a length that causes” is unclear as to whether the length of the protection tube itself produces the result or whether other features, such as the tube stiffness, harness length, connector position, and bend radius, are also required.
-the phrase “when the harness assembly is bent at the low-rigidity portion” does not specify:
the amount of bending, the direction of bending, the bend radius, whether the bending occurs during installation or in the installed state, the position of the actuator-side end relative to the actuator after bending. Accordingly, claim 3 is indefinite under § 112(b).
Claim 5 is indefinite because the phrase
-“larger than in a case”. It is unclear whether the claimed length is larger than the straight-line distance between the actuator and connector, the shortest possible harness length, the shortest installed routing length, the distance between electrical connection points or some other length.
-“connects ... in a shortest distance” is also unclear because it does not specify whether the comparison concerns the wire harness, the protection tube, or the complete harness assembly.
- “a shape that avoids contact” is likewise indefinite. It does not define the shape of the bent harness, the location or degree of bending, the clearance from the rotary member, whether contact must be avoided only during installation or during operation, whether the no-contact condition applies to the entire harness assembly or only the wire harness. Accordingly, claim 5 is indefinite under § 112(b).
Suggested claim 1 amendment:
1. A harness assembly configured to electrically connect an actuator disposed in a housing to a connector fixed to the housing, the housing accommodating a rotary member, the harness assembly comprising:
a wire harness including a plurality of bundled wires, the wire harness having a first end portion connectable to the actuator and a second end portion connectable to the connector; and
a protection tube configured to surround an outer circumference of the wire harness,
wherein the harness assembly includes:
a high-rigidity portion in which the wire harness is surrounded by the protection tube extending in a longitudinal direction; and
a low-rigidity portion having a lower bending rigidity than the high-rigidity portion extending in a longitudinal direction, at least part of the wire harness is exposed through an opening in the protection tube in the low-rigidity portion, wherein, in an installed state in which the second end portion is connected to the connector, the low-rigidity portion is bent such that the harness assembly is routed away from the rotary member and does not contact the rotary member.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telep et al. (US 2016/0215862) in view of Kogure (US 2008/0210828).
In regard to claim 1, Telep et al. teaches a harness assembly (6) configured to electrically connect an actuator (3) disposed in a housing (structure of actuator assembly 100) to a connector (first wire harness 6 which may comprise a plurality of conductors and connectors; paragraph [0029]) fixed to the housing (100), the housing accommodating a rotary member (see figure 9); a wire harness (6,7) including a plurality of bundled wires (a plurality of conductors and connectors, paragraph [0029]), the wire harness having a first end portion connectable to the actuator (3) and a second end portion connectable to the connector (connectors, paragraph [0029]).
Telep et al. does not teach a protection tube configured to surround an outer circumference of the wire harness, wherein the harness assembly includes: a high-rigidity portion in which the wire harness is surrounded by the protection tube extending in a longitudinal direction; and a low-rigidity portion having a lower bending rigidity than the high-rigidity portion extending in a longitudinal direction, at least part of the wire harness is exposed through an opening in the protection tube in the low-rigidity portion, wherein, in an installed state in which the second end portion is connected to the connector, the low-rigidity portion is bent such that the harness assembly is routed away from the rotary member and does not contact the rotary member.
Kogure teaches a protection tube (holder assembly 3 that includes parts 11, 12, 13), configured to surround an outer circumference of the wire harness (4), wherein the harness assembly (4) includes: a high-rigidity portion (see figure below) in which the wire harness (4) is surrounded by the protection tube (11, 12, 13) extending in a longitudinal direction; and
a low-rigidity portion (at portions 20a, 20b) having a lower bending rigidity than the high-rigidity portion extending in a longitudinal direction (allowing cables to bend, see bending portions (20a, 20b), at least part of the wire harness (4) is exposed through an opening in the protection tube (3) in the low-rigidity portion (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1078
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the wire harness of Telep et al. a high-rigidity portion in which the wire harness is surrounded by the protection tube extending in a longitudinal direction; and a low-rigidity portion having a lower bending rigidity than the high-rigidity portion extending in a longitudinal direction, at least part of the wire harness is exposed through an opening in the protection tube in the low-rigidity portion as taught by Kogure such that in an installed state in which the second end portion is connected to the connector, the low-rigidity portion is bent such that the harness assembly is routed away from the rotary member and does not contact the rotary member. Kogure teaches such a configuration reduces a required length of the wire harness and improves bending endurance thereof (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mueller et al. (US 11,866,133) teaches a flexible wire harness connected to an actuator. Hoshino (US 5,444,182) teaches a wire harness with a connector; Doshita et al. (US 2001/0052203) teaches a bendable wire harness with securing members that prevents bending of the wire harness in designated areas of the wire harness.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. 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 a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
