Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/586,071

CENTER CONSOLE BRACKET

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 23, 2024
Examiner
LE, HUAN G
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Nissan North America, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
709 granted / 801 resolved
+36.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§112
38.5%
-1.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 801 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 CORRESPONDENCE This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/586,071 filed on 2/23/24. Claims 1-18 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/23/24 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. Claims 5, 11-14 & 18 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. Claim 5 Line 3: “the first wiring harness” It is unclear if the claimed limitation is referring to the first wiring bundle mentioned in claim 1 or a new first wiring harness is being mentioned. Claim 11 Line 4: “the first wiring bundle” It is unclear if the claimed limitation is referring to the wiring harness mentioned in claim 10 or a new first wiring bundle is being mentioned. Claim 14 Line 3: “the first wiring harness” It is unclear if the claimed limitation is referring to the wiring harness mentioned in claim 10 or the first wiring harness mentioned in claim 11. Claim 18 Line 3: “the first wiring bundle” It is unclear if the claimed limitation is referring to the wiring harness mentioned in claim 10 or a new first wiring bundle is being mentioned. Claims 12 & 13 are also rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,810,969 to Blackmore et al. in view of U.S. Patent 5,106,143 to Soeters. Claim 1 Blackmore discloses in Figs 1-10, A center console bracket, comprising: a center console (e.g. 20) having a first side wall (e.g. 24) that at least partially defines a hollow interior (see Fig 2) of the center console; and a bracket (e.g. 42 being secured). Blackmore however, does not explicitly disclose that the bracket has a first portion and a second portion, the first portion being attached to the first side wall within the hollow interior, the second portion being configured to position and retain a first wiring bundle within the hollow interior at a location spaced apart from the first side wall. Soeters however, teaches a bracket with a first portion (e.g. 32 or 71) and second portion (e.g. 37 or 73) which retails a wiring bundle (e.g. 19) and located in the interior space (see Fig 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to utilize the teaching of a two portion bracket, as taught by Soeters, and modifying Blackmore’s bracket for the benefit of improving the securing of the wiring bundle to the side wall of the console. Claim 2 The center console bracket according to claim 1, further comprising: a connector (e.g. 17, Soeters) attached to the second portion of the bracket, the connector being connected to and supporting the first wiring bundle. Claim 3 The center console bracket according to claim 2, wherein the connector is connected to a second wiring harness (e.g. 29, Soeters) that extends rearward within the hollow interior of the center console, the second wiring harness including wiring that connects to components installed to the center console. Claim 6 The center console bracket according to claim 1, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the bracket are perpendicular to one another (Soeters, Figs 1 & 5). Claim 9 The center console bracket according to claim 1, wherein the connector has a forward end (e.g. 31) configured to receive and retain an end connector (e.g. 17 or 19) of the first wiring bundle. Claim 10 Blackmore in view of Soeters teaches (see reasoning above), A center console bracket, comprising: a center console (e.g. 20) having first side wall (e.g. 24) with the center console having a hollow interior at least partially defined by the first side wall; a bracket having a first portion (e.g. 32 or 71) and second portion (e.g. 37 or 73), the first portion being attached to the first side wall within the hollow interior, the second portion extending away from the first portion and the first side wall; and a wiring harness (e.g. 19) having a portion thereof that extends within the hollow interior of the center console and the second portion being configured and dimensioned to position and retain the wiring harness within the hollow interior at a location spaced apart from the first side wall. Claim 11 The center console bracket according to claim 10, further comprising: a connector (e.g. 17, Soeters) attached to the second portion of the bracket, the connector being connected to and supporting the first wiring bundle. Claim 12 The center console bracket according to claim 11, wherein the connector is connected to a second wiring harness (e.g. 29, Soeters) that extends rearward within the hollow interior of the center console, the second wiring harness including wiring that connects to components installed to the center console. Claim 15 The center console bracket according to claim 10, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the bracket are perpendicular to one another (Soeters, Figs 1 & 5). Claim 18 The center console bracket according to claim 10, wherein the connector has a forward end (e.g. 31) configured to receive and retain an end connector (e.g. 17 or 19) of the first wiring bundle. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 7, 8, 16 & 17 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. Claims 5, 13 & 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST. 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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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. /HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603555
DRIVE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597669
Battery Module and Method for Bracing a Battery Module
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595843
ELECTRIC DRIVE FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595766
HIGH POWER EPICYCLIC GEARBOX AND OPERATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590491
SWITCHABLE LOCKING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.5%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 801 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