Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/393,493

WEB HARNESS SYSTEM WITH LEG COMPONENTS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Aug 04, 2021
Examiner
MEKHAEIL, SHIREF M
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Alexander Andrew, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 580 resolved
+10.6% vs TC avg
Strong +65% interview lift
Without
With
+64.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
615
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 580 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . The amendment filled 10/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 17-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: There are no numerals in the specification that can be found in the drawings for the following recited limitations: “First elastomer layer portion” “Second elastomer layer portion” “Ballistic material layer” “a plurality of belt configuration slots” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 102 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 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. Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bell, US (5329884). In regards to claim 13 Bell discloses: A web harness system (20; fig. 1) comprising: a web harness belt (26; fig. 2); and a webbing (28, 30, 32, 50) coupled through the web harness belt (webs 32B, allows for the webbing to pass through belt 26), the webbing forming a leg harness portion (28, 30, 32, 50) comprising: a first right leg extension element (any portion of right hand side 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1) coupled to a rear lower web support element (30; directly or indirectly; as shown in fig. 1); a first left leg extension element (similar to first right leg extension element on the left-hand side of the entire assembly; fig. 1) coupled to the rear lower web support element (30; as shown in fig. 1); a right leg adjustment belt (right hand side 28) coupled to; the rear lower web support element (both; indirectly at the top end and directly at the bottom end of 28; fig. 1), the first right leg extension element, and a second right leg extension element (any of the other of the portions 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1); and a left leg adjustment belt (left hand side 28) coupled to the rear lower web support element, the first left leg extension element (similar to right leg on the left-hand side of the entire assembly; fig. 1), and a second left leg extension element (similar to right leg on the left-hand side). PNG media_image1.png 822 556 media_image1.png Greyscale In regards to claim 14 Bell discloses the first left leg extension element (any portion of right hand side 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1) and the second left leg extension element (any of the other of the portions 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1) are each fixed to different portions of the rear lower web support element (for instance while 32 is directly attached to one portion of 30, 50 is attached via 28 to a different portion, while also attaches to 30 via 32, however, different attachment points can exist within the reasonable interpretation of the claim language). In regards to claim 15 Bell discloses the first left leg extension element and the second left leg extension element are spaced apart from one another (at least between terminal end of 50 and terminal end of 32A or 32D). In regards to claim 17 Bell discloses the first left leg extension element and the second left leg extension element are each fixed to different portions of the left leg adjustment belt (where while 50 is attached to 28 at 28A, 32 or any portion thereof is attached to 28 at the bottom via 30). 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 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, US (5329884) in view of Taylor, US (7454800) in further view of Schurian, US (2013/0008742). In regards to claim 1 Bell discloses: A web harness system (20; fig. 1) comprising: a web harness belt (26; fig. 2); and a webbing (28, 30, 32, 50) coupled through the web harness belt (webs 32B, allows for the webbing to pass through belt 26), the webbing forming a leg harness portion (28, 30, 32, 50) comprising: a first right leg extension element (any portion of right hand side 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1) coupled to a rear lower web support element (30; directly or indirectly; as shown in fig. 1); a first left leg extension element (similar to first right leg extension element on the left-hand side of the entire assembly; fig. 1) coupled to the rear lower web support element (30; as shown in fig. 1); a right leg adjustment belt (right hand side 28) coupled to; the rear lower web support element (both; indirectly at the top end and directly at the bottom end of 28; fig. 1), the first right leg extension element, and a second right leg extension element (any of the other of the portions 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1); and a left leg adjustment belt (left hand side 28) coupled to the rear lower web support element, the first left leg extension element (similar to right leg on the left-hand side of the entire assembly; fig. 1), and a second left leg extension element (similar to right leg on the left-hand side). PNG media_image1.png 822 556 media_image1.png Greyscale In regards to claim 1 Bell does not disclose the web harness belt comprising: a plurality of layers; and an elastomer layer including a first elastomer layer portion and a second elastomer layer portion that are each coupled to a ballistic material layer of the plurality of layers. Taylor teaches the web harness belt comprising: a plurality of layers (fig. 12); an elastomer layer including a first elastomer layer portion (inner layer 118) and a second elastomer layer portion (outer layer 116). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize inner and outer layers of elastomer as taught by Taylor onto the belt of Bell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for the advantages of elastomer layers i.e., high durability, resistant to abrasion/tear and improved friction and flexibility. In regards to claim 1 Bell and Taylor do not teach a ballistic material layer. Schurian teaches in an analogous belt a ballistic material layer (“the padding assembly 110 and the padding assembly 210 may be made of ripstop nylon material and ballistic nylon material stitched together and perforated” as described in paragraph [0049]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ballistic material layer as taught by Schurian onto the first- and second-layer portions of the belt of Bell as modified by Taylor for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for the advantages of ballistic material layer i.e., resistance to abrasion and tearing in all directions. Note that primary reference Bell suggests the use of different style waist belts as described in Col 4, LL 29-33. In regards to claim 2 Bell discloses the first left leg extension element (any portion of right hand side 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1) and the second left leg extension element (any of the other of the portions 32A, B, C, D or 32 as a whole or section 50; fig. 1) are each fixed to different portions of the rear lower web support element (for instance while 32 is directly attached to one portion of 30, 50 is attached via 28 to a different portion, while also attaches to 30 via 32, however, different attachment points can exist within the reasonable interpretation of the claim language). In regards to claim 3 Bell discloses the first left leg extension element and the second left leg extension element are spaced apart from one another (at least between terminal end of 50 and terminal end of 32A or 32D). In regards to claim 4 Bell discloses the first left leg extension element and the second left leg extension element are each fixed to different portions of the left leg adjustment belt (where while 50 is attached to 28 at 28A, 32 or any portion thereof is attached to 28 at the bottom via 30). In regards to claim 7 (as best understood in light of lack of illustration), the teachings of elastomer layers onto the belt of Bell subsequently would have a person of ordinary skill in the art teach a plurality of belt configuration slots that aligns with slots 68 on belt 26 of Bell in order to keep the belt operational in the manner shown in fig. 1; Bell. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell, Taylor and Schurian as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hoffner, US (5765738). In regards to claims 5 and 6 Bell, Taylor and Schurian do not teach the right leg adjustment belt comprises a first padding assembly, and the left leg adjustment belt comprises a second padding assembly and the first padding assembly includes a first storage portion, and the second padding assembly includes a second storage portion. Hoffner teaches the right leg adjustment belt comprises a first padding assembly (see annotated drawings below), and the left leg adjustment belt comprises a second padding assembly (see annotated drawings below) (claim 5) and the first padding assembly includes a first storage portion (see annotated drawings below), and the second padding assembly includes a second storage portion (see annotated drawings below) (claim 6). PNG media_image2.png 476 647 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the first and second padding/storage portions taught by Hoffner onto the first and second leg assemblies of the belt of Bell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means to store objects usable by a worker at elevated heights without having to carry a tool belt or hold said useful objects while climbing a ladder for instance. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hoffner, US (5765738). In regards to claims 16 and 18 Bell does not disclose the right leg adjustment belt comprises a first padding assembly, and the left leg adjustment belt comprises a second padding assembly and the first padding assembly includes a first storage portion, and the second padding assembly includes a second storage portion. Hoffner teaches the right leg adjustment belt comprises a first padding assembly (see annotated drawings below), and the left leg adjustment belt comprises a second padding assembly (see annotated drawings below) (claim 16) and the first padding assembly includes a first storage portion (see annotated drawings below), and the second padding assembly includes a second storage portion (see annotated drawings below) (claim 18). PNG media_image2.png 476 647 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the first and second padding/storage portions taught by Hoffner onto the first and second leg assemblies of the belt of Bell for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means to store objects usable by a worker at elevated heights without having to carry a tool belt or hold said useful objects while climbing a ladder for instance. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-12, 19 and 20 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 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not moot in light of newly submitted interpretation of reference Bell, as necessitated by the amendment. 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 SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri. 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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. /S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634 /DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 04, 2021
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 24, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601222
LADDERS, FEET FOR LADDERS AND HINGES FOR LADDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12553285
LADDERS, FOOT MECHANISMS FOR LADDERS, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552655
SCISSOR LIFT DESCENT CONTROL SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12529263
LADDERS AND LADDER RUNGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12523095
LADDERS AND LADDER BRACING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
63%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+64.9%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 580 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