Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/951,044

ADJUSTABLE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION FOR PROTECTIVE SUITS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 22, 2022
Examiner
KANE, KATHARINE GRACZ
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Atlas Devices LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
296 granted / 631 resolved
-23.1% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
692
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.6%
+8.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 19, 20 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durney (USPN 3,699,589) in view of Rumpf (USPN 4,083,512). Regarding Claim 1, Durney discloses a weight distribution system (Figures 1-7) for a protective suit (12), comprising: a harness (Figures 3-7) including a harness interface (HI, see annotated Figure 2 below); a suit interface (SI, see annotated Figure 2 below) configured to be coupled to the protective suit (12); a strap adjuster (28/32) configured to adjust a length of a strap between the harness interface and the suit interface in response to a user input (Col. 3, lines 36-48); and an input device (device, see annotated Figure 2 below) configured to receive the user input. Durney does not specifically disclose the strap adjuster having a self-locking mechanism that resists tension in the strap and is controllably releasable under load in response to a rotational user input. However, Rumpf discloses a strap adjuster (Figures 1-3) having a self-locking mechanism that resists tension in the strap and is controllably releasable under load in response to a rotational user input (Col. 4, line 36-Col 6, line 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the strap adjuster as taught by Rumpf, in order to provide adjustable pressure, safety and locking force to the system of Durney. Regarding Claim 2, Durney discloses the input device is located on an exterior surface of the protective suit (Figures 1 & 2). Regarding Claim 5, Durney discloses a second suit interface (SS, see annotated Figure 2 below) and a second harness interface (SH, see annotated Figure 2 below), wherein the strap adjuster is configured to adjust a second length of the strap between the second suit interface and the second harness interface while adjusting the first length of the strap between the first harness interface and the first suit interface in response to the user input (Col. 3, lines 36-48). Regarding Claim 6, Durney discloses wherein the strap adjuster includes a pulley (130) configured to grip the strap (via 102/98/100) between the first length and the second length (Col. 3, lines 36-48 & Col. 4, line 60-Col. 6, line 14), and wherein the input device is either configured to transfer rotational force to the pulley (Col. 3, lines 36-48 & Col. 4, line 60-Col. 6, line 14), or configured to operate a motor to exert rotational force on the pulley. Regarding Claim 7, Durney discloses the strap adjuster is configured to shorten the first length while lengthening the second length (Col. 3, lines 36-48 & Col. 4, line 60-Col. 6, line 14), and lengthen the first length while shortening the second length (Col. 3, lines 36-48 & Col. 4, line 60-Col. 6, line 14). Regarding Claim 9, Durney discloses a first strap end of the strap is coupled to the first harness interface and a second strap end of the strap is coupled to the second harness interface (Figures 1-3). Regarding Claim 19, Durney discloses a weight distribution system (Figures 1-7) for a protective suit (12), comprising :a strap to couple a harness (Figures 3-7) to an interior of the protective suit (Figures 1-3) ;an input configured to receive user input from outside of the protective suit while the protective suit is closed (Col. 3, lines 36-48); and a strap adjuster (28/32) configured to adjust a vertical position of the harness relative to the protective suit in response to a user input (Col. 3, lines 36-48). Durney does not specifically disclose the strap adjuster having a self-locking mechanism that resists tension in the strap and is controllably releasable under load in response to a rotational user input. However, Rumpf discloses a strap adjuster (Figures 1-3) having a self-locking mechanism that resists tension in the strap and is controllably releasable under load in response to a rotational user input (Col. 4, line 36-Col 6, line 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the strap adjuster as taught by Rumpf, in order to provide adjustable pressure, safety and locking force to the system of Durney. Regarding Claim 20, Durney discloses the means for adjusting the vertical position of the harness includes a means for adjusting a strap length (Col. 3, lines 36-48 & Col. 4, line 60-Col. 6, line 14). Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Durney and Rumpf disclose the strap adjuster comprises a motor (Rumpf, Col. 2, line 32-Col. 3, line 39) and a reel (Rumpf, Col. 2, line 32-Col. 3, line 39 & Col. 4, line 36-Col 6, line 41) configured to grip the strap the reel comprises a ratchet (Rumpf, Col. 4, line 36-Col 6, line 41); the rotational user input is a rotational force (Rumpf, Col. 4, line 36-Col 6, line 41); and the input device is configured to transfer the rotational force to the strap adjuster (Rumpf, Col. 4, line 36-Col 6, line 41). PNG media_image1.png 715 545 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durney (USPN 3,699,589) in view of Rumpf (USPN 4,083,512) in further view of Hawkins (USPN 3,724,815). Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Durney and Rumpf do not specifically disclose the self-locking mechanism comprises a Weston Brake. However, Hawkins discloses a Weston Brake. It would have been obvious to use a Weston Brake for the locking mechanism, as taught by Hawkins, in order to protect from overloading. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST. 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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. /KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 30, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599185
PROTECTIVE KNEE PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12564247
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR WITH REEL CLOSURE AND SLIDABLE EYELET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12538960
FOOT SUPPORT SYSTEMS INCLUDING FLUID MOVEMENT CONTROLLERS AND ADJUSTABLE FOOT SUPPORT PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12478118
Adapter System For Vest Closure Mechanisms
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471670
SOLE STRUCTURE HAVING A FLUID-FILLED CHAMBER FOR AN ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
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
47%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+45.4%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 631 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