Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/707,985

HARNESS SYSTEM WITH A BUCKLE RESTRAINING FUNCTION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 30, 2022
Examiner
STRICKLER, SCOTT LAWRENCE
Art Unit
3614
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
wonderland switzerland AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
36 granted / 45 resolved
+28.0% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
79
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
60.9%
+20.9% vs TC avg
§102
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 45 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 . This communication is in response to application No. 17/707,985 Harness System with a Buckle Restraining Function; filed on 3/20/2022 and amended on 05/06/2025. Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18, are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 have been cancelled by amendment. 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 3, 4, 6 , 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0022462 A1). Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses; PNG media_image1.png 594 674 media_image1.png Greyscale A harness system with a buckle restraining function, the harness system comprising: an upper buckle (111A; Fig. 2, Lee); an upper strap (121A) slidably passing through the upper buckle and comprising a waist portion (1212A) and a shoulder portion (1211A) divided by the upper buckle; and a restraining device configured to restrain a sliding movement of the upper buckle (111A) relative to the upper strap (121A) when the lower strap portion is subject to a pulling force during a collision or an emergency brake of a vehicle. Lee (US 2020/0022462 A1) discloses an identical restraining device where a strap passes through a buckle structure and over a beam. The ends of the strap exit the buckle structure in the same direction with one strap end positioned immediately above the other strap end. When force is applied to the lower strap end the restraining device restrains the sliding of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap as shown in Fig. 3. This structure and the applications of force and resisted motion are identical to the current application. Lee (US 2020/0022462 A1) does not disclose that the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap is directed towards the waist portion when the shoulder portion is forced during a collision or an emergency brake of a vehicle. Lee instead has the force application (and sliding direction) reversed. PNG media_image2.png 461 662 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to reverse the routing of the strap through the buckle so that the force application within the restraint device remained the same while the external attachments at the waist and shoulder were reversed, since such a modification would have involved a mere reversal of parts. A reversal of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, namely that restraint device would continue to function as intended, and resist sliding of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap. Essentially, this reversal of strap routing has already been accomplished within the Lee reference by the left and right-handed buckle arrangements. This can most easily be seen (see annotated Fig above) if the left-hand upper buckle of the current application is rotated through 90 degrees and compared with the right-hand upper buckle of the reference (Lee (US 2020/0022462 A1)). This rotation aligns the restraining device, along with the belts and their respective forces/loads, with those disclosed in the reference (Lee (US 2020/0022462 A1)). Said another way, the structure, strap routing and strap loading of the left side buckle in the present application match exactly the structure, strap routing and strap loading of the right side buckle of the Lee reference. The same is true for the right side of the present application. Lee further discloses; wherein a through slot (113A; Fig. 3, Lee) is formed on the upper buckle, the restraining device comprises an anti-sliding structure (131A) and a beam structure (132A), the beam structure is disposed on the upper buckle, the through slot comprises a first portion (1131A) and a second portion (1132A) divided by the beam structure (132A), the first portion is adjacent to the waist portion, the second portion is adjacent to the shoulder portion, and the upper strap passes through the first portion of the through slot from bottom to top and passes through the second portion of the through slot from top to bottom. wherein the restraining device further comprises a stopping component (131F; Fig. 13, Lee (US 2020/0022462 A1)) detachably disposed on the upper strap and configured to abut against the upper buckle for restraining the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap. Lee does not disclose that the stopping component is disposed on the waist portion of the upper strap and that it restrains movement of the buckle towards the waist portion. However, Lee does disclose the stopping component (131F; Fig. 13) to be located on the strap portion opposite to the where the force is applied. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to move the stopping component from the shoulder portion of the upper strap to the waist portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere rearrangement of parts. A rearrangement of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Further, such a modification would be expected to yield predictable results, namely that stopping component would continue to function as intended, and resist relative movement of the upper buckle with respect to the upper strap. Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses; wherein the beam structure (132A; Fig. 2, 3) is fixedly disposed on the upper buckle, the anti-sliding structure (131A) is disposed on a wall of the beam structure and configured to engage with the upper strap, and the upper strap is engaged by the anti-sliding structure for restraining the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap and toward the waist portion when the upper strap is forced to attach with the anti-sliding structure. In Fig. 3, Lee demonstrates the restraining device structure as comprising the anti-sliding structure disposed on the walls of the beam structure and resisting the motion of the upper belt (1211A) when force is applied to the lower belt (1212A). Regarding Claim 6, Lee discloses; wherein the beam structure (132B; Fig. 5) is slidably disposed on the upper buckle, the anti-sliding structure (131B) is disposed on at least one of a wall of the beam structure and a wall of the first portion of the through slot (W1B) facing toward each other and configured to engage with the upper strap, and the upper strap is engaged by the anti-sliding structure for restraining the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap and toward the waist portion when the upper strap is forced to drive the beam structure to slide relative to the upper buckle and toward the wall of the first portion of the through slot. In Fig. 5, Lee demonstrates the restraining device structure as comprising the anti-sliding structure disposed on the walls of the first portion of the slot and that a force applied to the lower strap (1212B) will cause the sliding beam (132B) to move into contact with the wall (W1B) and resist relative motion of the strap. Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses; wherein the beam structure is slidably disposed on the upper buckle, the restraining device further comprises a slanted surface structure (133C; Fig. 7) disposed on a wall of the beam structure (132C) adjacent to the first portion (1131C) of the through slot, a protruding length of the slanted surface structure increases from top to bottom, the anti-sliding structure (131C) is disposed on the slanted surface structure, and the upper strap is engaged by the anti-sliding structure for restraining the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap and toward the waist portion when the upper strap is forced to attach with the anti-sliding structure. In Fig. 7, Lee demonstrates the restraining device structure as comprising the anti-sliding structure disposed on the slanted surface of the beam and that a force applied to the lower strap (1212C) will cause the sliding beam (132C) to move into contact with the wall (W1C) and resist relative motion of the strap. Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses; wherein the restraining device further comprises an operating structure (134C; Fig. 7) and a recovering component (135C), the operating structure is connected to the beam structure (132C), the recovering component is abutted between the beam structure and the upper buckle, the operating structure is configured to drive the beam structure to slide away from a wall of the first portion (1131C) of the through slot, and the recovering component is configured to drive the beam structure to slide toward the wall of the first portion of the through slot. Fig. 7 of Lee discloses a movable beam structure as located on the movable structure 134C. Spring 135C biases the movable beam structure against the wall of the first portion of the slot, trapping the strap between them. Alternately, pressure on the movable structure 134C releases the strap from between the movable beam and the wall of the slot. Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses: wherein the beam structure (132D; Fig. 9) is rotatably disposed on the upper buckle, the anti-sliding structure (131D) is disposed on at least one of a wall (133D) of the beam structure and a wall of the second portion of the through slot, the anti-sliding structure is configured to engage with the upper strap, and the upper strap is engaged by the anti-sliding structure for restraining the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap and toward the waist portion when the upper strap is forced to drive the beam structure to rotate relative to the upper buckle along an engaging direction. In Fig. 9, Lee demonstrates the restraining device structure as comprising the anti-sliding structure disposed on the surface of the beam and that a force applied to the lower strap (1212D) will cause the rotating beam (132D) to rotate into contact with the wall of the buckle and resist relative motion of the strap. Regarding Claim 14, Lee discloses; wherein the restraining device further comprises a slanted surface (133D; Fig. 9) structure disposed on the wall of the beam structure (132D), a protruding length of the slanted surface structure increases from bottom to top, and the anti-sliding structure (131D) is disposed on the slanted surface structure. Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses; wherein the restraining device further comprises a recovering component (134D; Fig. 9) abutted between the beam structure (132D) and the upper buckle and configured to drive the beam structure to rotate along the engaging direction. (Fig.9 and Paragraph 47 describe the recovering component as configured to rotate the beam structure along an engaging direction.) Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses; wherein the upper strap slidably passes through the through slot, the restraining device comprises a slanted surface structure (132E) the slanted surface structure is disposed on a wall of the through slot (W1E), a protruding length of the slanted surface structure increases from bottom to top, the anti-sliding structure is disposed on the slanted surface structure, and the upper strap is engaged by the anti-sliding structure for restraining the sliding movement of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap and toward the waist portion when the upper strap is forced to attach with the anti-sliding structure. In Fig. 11, Lee demonstrates the restraining device structure as comprising the anti-sliding structure disposed on the slanted surface of the wall of the through slot and that a force applied to the lower strap (1212E) will cause the strap to engage with the anti-sliding structure (131E) to resist relative motion of the strap. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The physical structure of the upper buckle assembly, specifically the restraining device and the routing of the strap through the restraining device, are identical to the primary reference Lee. Applicant has argued that the ultimate destinations / locations of the ends of the strap, outside of the upper buckle, are patentably different from the reference Lee. In both instances, a strap passes through the slot of the buckle assembly and over the beam. The ends of the strap exit the buckle assembly together in the same direction with one strap end positioned immediately above the other strap end. When force is applied to the lower strap end, the restraining device restrains the sliding of the upper buckle relative to the upper strap end as shown in Fig. 3. As further explanation, an annotated figure has been included with the rejection of claim 3, illustrating how the left and right, mirror-image buckle assemblies of Lee can be used to directly illustrate the right and left buckle assemblies of the present application. Conclusion PNG media_image3.png 551 312 media_image3.png Greyscale The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wier (US 5,771,544): describes a similar restraining device which passes a strap through a slotted buckle and around a movable beam. The ends of the strap pass out of the buckle in the same direction with one strap end positioned immediately above the other strap end. When force is applied to the lower strap end, the beam slides in order to trap the strap between the beam and the side of the buckle structure preventing further movement of the strap with respect to the buckle. Both the beam and the interfacing side wall of the buckle are sloped. PNG media_image4.png 243 596 media_image4.png Greyscale Langtry (US 2008/0141506 A1): describes a similar restraining device which passes a strap through a slotted buckle and around a movable beam. The ends of the strap pass out of the buckle in the same direction with one strap end positioned immediately above the other strap end. When force is applied to the lower strap end, the beam slides in order to trap the strap between the beam and the side of the buckle structure preventing further movement of the strap with respect to the buckle. Both the beam and the interfacing side wall of the buckle are sloped. Fohl (US 4,685,740): describes a similar restraining device which passes a strap through a slotted buckle and around a movable beam. The ends of the strap pass out of the buckle in the same direction with one strap end positioned immediately above the other strap end. Spring 27 biases the beam against the buckle in order to trap the webbing in what is described as “a one-sided clamping action” exerted on the webbing, which permits the passage of webbing in the direction of the upper strap end but resists motion of the webbing in the direction of the lower strap end. Pressing on the slide (24) releases this mechanism and allows movement of the PNG media_image5.png 503 266 media_image5.png Greyscale webbing in both directions.) Bougher (US 4,876,770); discloses a restraining device structure where a strap passes through a buckle structure and over a movable beam. The ends of the strap exit the buckle structure in the same direction with one strap end positioned immediately above the other strap end. When force is applied to the lower strap end, the beam rotates to trap the upper strap end between the beam and the side of the buckle structure preventing further movement of the strap with respect to the buckle. PNG media_image6.png 226 473 media_image6.png Greyscale THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 5:30pm. 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 at (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. /SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614 /JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 30, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594991
CRAWLER-TYPE WORK MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594996
VEHICLE FRONT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576685
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE SUSPENSION WITH USER CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC ASSIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570357
Method for Influencing a Movement of a Steering Control Element of a Steer-by-Wire Steering System in a Vehicle
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568880
RIDING LAWN MOWER, DISPLAY INTERFACE OF A POWER TOOL AND RIDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.6%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 45 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month