Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/362,441

ATTACHMENT MECHANISMS AND SYSTEMS FOR USE WITH EDGE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 31, 2023
Examiner
MCFARLAND, KATHLEEN MAVOURNEEN
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honeywell Safety Products Usa Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
82 granted / 139 resolved
+7.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
180
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 139 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “the first beam” which the examiner assumes for the purpose of this Office Action the applicant meant to state “the fixed beam” instead. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the attachment slot is disposed below the attachment slot” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner how the attachment slot can be disposed below itself. For the purpose of this Office Action the examiner assumes the applicant meant to state that the attachment groove is disposed below the attachment slot. 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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingerman (2,321,916). Ingerman discloses: Claim 1: An attachment mechanism comprising: an attachment plate (Fig. 4; 14) comprising an attachment slot (Fig. 4; 17/18) and an attachment groove (Fig. 4; 28), wherein one or more of the attachment slot and the attachment groove are configured to receive one or more fastening mechanisms (Fig. 3; 22) to secure the attachment mechanisms to a fixed structure (Fig. 3; 24); a cross plate (Fig. 4; 12) comprising a cross hole (Fig. 4; 16), wherein the cross plate is fixedly connected to the attachment plate (Fig. 4; 12 and 14 are integral), and wherein the cross plate is disposed perpendicular to the attachment plate (Fig. 4; 14 and 12 are perpendicular). Claim 2: The attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the cross hole (Fig. 4; 16) defines a pivot point of the attachment mechanism (the cross hole is able to allow pivotal movement). Claim 3: The attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the cross hole is aligned with one or more of the attachment slot or the attachment groove (Fig. 4; 16 is depicted as aligned with 17). Claim 5: The attachment mechanism of claim 1, wherein the attachment slot comprises a keyhole-shaped slot (Fig. 4; 17/18). Claim 6 as best understood by the examiner: The attachment mechanism of claim 5, wherein the attachment slot (Fig. 4; 17/18) and the attachment groove (Fig. 4; 28) are disposed on opposite sides of the cross plate (Fig. 4; 17/18 and 28 are disposed on opposite sides of 12), and wherein the attachment slot (Fig. 4; 28) is disposed below the attachment slot (Fig. 4; 17/18). Claims 7-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seymoure (1,193,832). Seymoure discloses: Claim 7: An attachment system configured to support an edge protection system, wherein the attachment system comprises: an attachment mechanism comprising: an attachment plate (Fig. 1; 1) comprising an attachment slot (Fig. 1; 6 upper) and an attachment groove (Fig. 1; 6 lower), wherein one or more of the attachment slot and the attachment groove are configured to receive one or more fastening mechanisms (Fig. 1; 7) to secure the attachment mechanisms to a fixed structure (Fig. 1; W); a cross plate (Fig. 1; 5) comprising a cross hole (Fig. 1; 9), wherein the cross plate is fixedly connected to the attachment plate (Fig. 1; 1 and 5 are integral), and wherein the cross plate is disposed perpendicular to the attachment plate (Fig. 1; 1 and 5 are perpendicular); a fixed beam (Fig. 1; 14) fixedly attached to the attachment mechanism (Fig. 1; at 4); and a running beam (Fig. 1; 8) operably attached to the first beam such that the running beam is configured to move along a length of the fixed beam relative to the attachment mechanism (Fig. 1; 8 moves along a length of 14). Claim 8: The attachment system of claim 7, further comprising a sliding bracket (Fig. 1; 12), wherein the sliding bracket is fixedly attached to the running beam (Fig. 1; via 11) and operatively engaged with the fixed beam, such that the sliding bracket is configured to move along the length of the fixed beam relative to the attachment mechanism (Lines 91-108). Claim 9: The attachment system of claim 7, wherein the cross hole defines a pivot point (Fig. 1; at 9) of the attachment mechanism above the center of gravity of the fixed beam (Fig. 1; 14) such that the fixed beam is prevented from rotating relative to the attachment mechanism (Fig. 1; 14 is prevented from rotating when 12 is locked onto 15). Claim 10: The attachment system of claim 7, wherein the cross hole is aligned with one or more of the attachment slot or the attachment groove (Fig. 1; the hole at 9 passing through 8 is aligned with both 6 upper and lower). Claim 12: The attachment system of claim 7, wherein the attachment slot comprises a keyhole-shaped slot (Fig. 1; 6, Lines 60-67). Claim 13: The attachment system of claim 12, wherein the attachment slot and the attachment groove are disposed on opposite sides of the cross plate, and wherein the attachment slot is disposed below the attachment slot (Fig. 1; 6 upper and lower are disposed on opposite sides of 5). 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingerman (2,321,916). Claim 4: Ingerman discloses the attachment mechanism of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the cross plate is fixedly attached to the attachment plate via one or more weldments. While Ingerman fails to specifically disclose the cross plate being fixedly attached to the attachment plate via one or more weldments, the examiner asserts that welds are commonly used to assemble metallic components. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to weld the cross plate to the attachment plate with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a secure means for attachment and reduce manufacturing costs. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seymoure (1,193,832). Claim 11: Seymoure discloses the attachment system of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the cross plate is fixedly attached to the attachment plate via one or more weldments. While Seymoure fails to specifically disclose the cross plate being fixedly attached to the attachment plate via one or more weldments, the examiner asserts that welds are commonly used to assemble metallic components. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to weld the cross plate to the attachment plate with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a secure means for attachment and reduce manufacturing costs. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm. 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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. /Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635 Kathleen M. McFarland Examiner Art Unit 3635 /RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600584
MOBILE ACCESS UNIT AND CAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599791
SELF-RETRACTING LIFELINE HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12565908
Carabiner Divider and Fall Arrest System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559953
SCAFFOLD STAIRWAY HAVING STEP HOLDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12521578
LINE DISPENSING DEVICES
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 139 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