Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/364,426

VEHICLE ELECTRICAL SWITCH ASSEMBLY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 02, 2023
Examiner
JIMENEZ, ANTHONY R
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nissan North America, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
950 granted / 1077 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1104
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1077 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to Applicant’s December 2, 2025, submission. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. 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 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton (U.S. Pat. No. 5,051,607) in view of Salter et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0025361 A1, hereinafter "Salter”). Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Dalton discloses [an] electrical switch assembly (FIG. 4), comprising an adaptor (64) having an end with a first height (H1; FIG. 4, reproduced and annotated below) and a first width (W1; FIGa1. 4 below) and an end face (EF; FIG. 4 below), the adaptor (64) also having a first depth (D1; FIG. 4 below) dimensioned such that the adaptor (64) can be installed in a re-existing opening of a switch bank of a vehicle (the adapter can be installed as described), and a switch component (61, 63, S1) having a housing (61) and at least one switch device (S1) surrounded on at least three sides by the housing (the actuator ACT of S1 is surrounded by a surrounding opening surface SOS of 61; FIG. 4), the housing (61) having a second height (H2; FIG. 4 below), a second width (W2; FIG. 4) and a second depth (D2; FIG. 4), the second height (H2) being greater than the first height (H1) and the second width (W2) being greater than the first width (W1) such that with the switch component (61, 63, S1) installed to the adaptor (64), the switch component (61, 63, S1) completely covers the end face (EF) of the adaptor (FIG. 4, in an assembled state). Dalton does not disclose (i) that the switch is a vehicle electrical switch, as recited in Claim 1, and (ii) that the adaptor includes a plurality of snap-fitting protrusions dimension to engage surfaces of that define the opening of the pre-existing switch bank for retention therein, as recited in Claim 3. PNG media_image1.png 654 870 media_image1.png Greyscale However, Salter discloses (i) a vehicle electrical switch [and an adapter (30; FIG. 2) that can be installed in a pre-existing opening of a switch bank of a vehicle (C; FIG. 4, ¶ [0031])], as recited in Claim 1, and (ii) that the adaptor (30) includes a plurality of snap-fitting protrusions (50) dimension to engage surfaces of that define the opening of the pre-existing switch bank for retention therein (FIG. 2), as recited in Claim 3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salter with those of Dalton to provide coupling from an energy source to various vehicle locations. Regarding Claim 2, Dalton discloses that the second depth (D2) of the housing (61) of the switch is less than 10% of the first depth (D1) of the adaptor (64; FIG. 4). Regarding Claim 4, Dalton discloses that the switch device (S1) includes a wiring harness (the semi-circular end portions of 20, 21; FIG. 4) that extends from a back side of the switch component (61, 63, S1) and through an opening in the end face (EF) of the adaptor (64) such that the switch device (S1) can be electrically connected to the vehicle (FIG. 4). Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Dalton and Salter discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, and Dalton further discloses that the at least one switch device (S1) includes a first switch (S1) configured such that pressing on a first portion (ACT; FIG. 4) of an exposed surface of the housing (61) of the switch component (61, 63, S1) operates the first switch. The combination of Dalton and Salter does not disclose the claimed second switch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second switch wherein pressing on a second portion of the exposed surface of the housing (e.g., a second one of ACT) of the switch component operates the second switch to provide increased electrical load coupling capacity since it has been held that 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. Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Dalton and Salter discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, and Dalton further discloses that the first switch includes a pair of electric contact plates (in which a screw is inserted at 51; FIG. 4), and an exposed surface of the housing (61) is made of a flexible material such that pressing the first portion (ACT) of the exposed surface operates the first switch. The combination of Dalton and Salter does not disclose the claimed material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such material to provide a more user-friendly touch feel adjacent the actuator since it has been held to be within the general ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The combination of Dalton and Salter does not disclose the claimed second switch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second switch wherein pressing on a second portion of the exposed surface of the housing (e.g., a second one of ACT) of the switch component operates the second switch to provide increased electrical load coupling capacity since it has been held that 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. Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Dalton and Salter discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, and Dalton further discloses that the at least one switch device (S1) includes a first switch (S1) configured such that contacting a first portion (ACT) of an exposed surface of the housing (61) of the switch component (61, 63, S1) operates the first switch. The combination of Dalton and Salter does not disclose the claimed second switch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a second switch wherein pressing on a second portion of the exposed surface of the housing (e.g., a second one of ACT) of the switch component operates the second switch to provide increased electrical load coupling capacity since it has been held that 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. Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Dalton and Salter discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize such material to provide electrical insulation since it has been held to be within the general ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, include language similar to that of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, respectively, and are rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above. Regarding Claim 10, Salter discloses a switch bank having a plurality of openings (¶ [0078]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salter with those of Dalton to provide multiple options for device coupling. Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Dalton and Salter discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention and Salter further discloses that each of the plurality of openings of the switch bank includes a projection receiving structure (50), and the adaptor (30) includes at least one snap-fitting projection (56) dimensioned and positioned to contact the projection receiving structure (50) once installed into one of the plurality of openings in the switch bank thereby retaining the adaptor (30) within the one of the plurality of openings (FIG. 3, ¶ [0078]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Salter with those of Dalton to ensure a secure fit for device coupling. Regarding Claim 20, Dalton discloses that the at least one switch device (S1) is fixed to a printed circuit board (54; FIG. 3). Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dalton and Salter in view of Cannon et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0194483 A1, hereinafter “Cannon”). The combination of Dalton and Salter discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, but does not disclose the claimed switch. However, Cannon discloses that each of the first switch (104-3) and the second switch (104-4) is a capacitive haptic switch (¶¶ [0021], [0031]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cannon with those of Dalton and Salter to provide a user-friendly actuation means (e.g., one requiring less or no physical contact with an actuator). Claim 18 includes language similar to that of Claim 8 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (313) 446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached 12-9 ESTPM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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. /ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 02, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 02, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599529
FOOT CONTROLLER FOR DENTAL UNIT CHAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603235
SWITCH ASSEMBLY COMPRISING AN ON-LOAD TAP CHANGER AND A DRIVE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603236
KEY STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603241
CIRCUIT BREAKER AND OPERATING MECHANISM THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586739
HYBRID CIRCUIT BREAKER WITH IMPROVED CURRENT CAPACITY PER DEVICE SIZE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+7.0%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1077 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month