Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 19/024,735

INSTRUMENT PANEL OF VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 16, 2025
Priority
May 08, 2024 — JP 2024-075805
Examiner
DHANANI, SHAMS
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toyota Jibosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allowance Rate
110 granted / 118 resolved
+33.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
130
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§112
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 118 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Drawings Figure 5,6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 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. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terai(US 5273310 A) in view of Hurst(US 7093847 B2). Regarding claim 1, Terai discloses an instrument panel (1) comprising: an airbag retainer(18) that is for attachment of an airbag main body(16); and a tray(7a) that is disposed below the airbag retainer(fig 1,2), the airbag retainer and the tray being attached to a panel main body(fig 1,2), wherein a part of the tray is attached to the panel main body with a fastening tool(8). Terai does not disclose an opening portion in the retainer however Hurst discloses an airbag retainer comprising an opening portion(20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Terai such that a retainer comprising opening portions is used to provide a mounting point on the retainer that requires less space and allowing the mounting structure to lock on, providing a secure fit. The combination would result in the fastening tool being visually recognizable through the opening formed in the airbag retainer. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Terai in view of Hurst discloses wherein the airbag main body is attached to the airbag retainer by being locked at the opening portion of the airbag retainer (col 2, line 62- col 3, line 2, terai; Fig 2 Hurst). Regarding claim 3, Terai discloses wherein the tray is disposed to be aligned with an air outlet (20-23) of an air conditioning device in a vehicle width direction(fig 1,2; col 3 lines 3-18). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMS DHANANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) - 8:00 am - 4:00 pm. 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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571) 270-5985. 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. SHAMS . DHANANI Examiner Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12734936
SIMPLIFIED MANUFACTURING SENSOR IMPLEMENTATION
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12709334
MODULAR MOTOR VEHICLE ASSEMBLY PLATFORM
1y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12709346
OFFROAD VEHICLE WITH MODULAR FRAME
1y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12703417
VEHICLE STEERING COLUMN
1y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12698052
BICYCLE SUSPENSION COMPONENTS
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+8.4%)
1y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 118 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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