DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed on 05/11/2026 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US 20030168875).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses an in-vehicle device attachment structure comprising: a retrofit device attachment portion (30, 60) provided in a vehicle (abstract): an intermediate base plate (31, 100) attached to the retrofit device attachment portion (figs 1-10); and a retrofit device (20) attached to the intermediate base plate (figs 1-10), wherein the retrofit device attachment portion includes: a supporting portion (74) configured to support the intermediate base plate and disposed between a roof panel (16) and an interior member (24) of the vehicle (fig 6); and a coupling portion (61,62,64, 66) extending from the supporting portion toward the roof panel to be fixed to the roof panel (figs 1-10).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson further discloses that the retrofit device attachment portion includes a first rail (30 on left, fig 3) that supports one lateral side of the intermediate base plate and a second rail (30 on right, fig 3) that supports another lateral side of the intermediate base plate (figs 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson further discloses that the retrofit device attachment portion includes a plurality of base plate attachment portions (38) provided at a plurality of positions spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction of the first rail and the second rail (figs 1-10), and the intermediate base plate is attached to one of the plurality of base plate attachment portions (figs 1-10, [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson further discloses that the intermediate base plate is longer than a distance between the first rail and the second rail in a direction in which the first rail and the second rail are arranged side by side (fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson further discloses that the first rail and the second rail are arranged side by side in a width direction of the vehicle and extend in a front-rear direction of the vehicle (fig 1).’
Regarding claim 7, Anderson further discloses an attachment member (102) that attaches the intermediate base plate to the retrofit device attachment portion in an orientation in which attachment/removal can be performed in a horizontal direction (figs 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson further discloses that the intermediate base plate includes a base plate body (104) and a plurality of device attachment portions (184, portion of 104 @ 102 ) provided in the base plate body, and the retrofit device is attached to one of the plurality of device attachment portions (figs 1-10).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson further discloses that the retrofit device attachment portion is provided to a roof of the vehicle (figs 1-10).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20030168875)as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Giavarini (US 20100127128).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson is silent regarding the fact that the first rail is longer than the second rail.
Giavarini teaches the first rail is longer than the second rail ([0061]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Anderson and Giavarini before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Anderson to include rails of different lengths as taught by Giavarini in order to allow the production of a wide variety of configuration ([0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Anderson.
Conclusion
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 DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
08/13/2026
Prosecution Insights