Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/564,019

ROPE BRAKE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 24, 2023
Examiner
HAYES, KRISTEN C
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Andreas Schuhmacher
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
857 granted / 1250 resolved
+16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1299
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§102
34.3%
-5.7% vs TC avg
§112
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1250 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Everette US 2011/0258815. Regarding claim 1, Everette discloses a rope brake (Everette, Figure 1) for securing falling people or objects, wherein the rope brake is fastened in a belay point, the rope brake comprising: a guide element (5) designed to guide a belay rope; and a deflection element (11), which has a fastening section (1) and a braking section (11e) and is movably mounted (at 15), wherein the belay rope is guided through between the guide element and the deflection element (Everette, Figure 6A), wherein the rope brake further has a stop (7) configured to limit the movement of the deflection element, the stop is arranged such that the distance between the deflection element and the guide element is always larger than the diameter of the belay rope (Everette, Figure 6A), and the deflection element and the guide element are arranged relative to one another such that the belay rope touches both the guide element and the braking section in a loaded state (Everette, Figures 6A and 6B). Regarding claim 2, Everette further discloses the deflection element being rotatably mounted on the rope brake about a pivot point (at 15). Regarding claim 3 and 4, Everette further discloses the rope brake having a second element (4) arranged such that in the event of a fall into the rope brake itself the belay rope rubs against the guide element in the loaded state, the braking section and the second element (Everette, Figures 6A and 6B). Regarding claim 5, Everette further discloses the deflection element and the second element being arranged such that the distance between the braking section and the second element is always larger than the diameter of the rope (Everette, Figures 6A and 6B). Regarding claim 6, Everette further discloses the rope brake having an opening element (10) which is configured to exert a force on the deflection element such that the distance between the braking section and the guide element is enlarged (Everette, ¶0086). Regarding claim 7, Everette further discloses the rope brake can be opened in at least one place (at 15). Regarding claim 9, Everette further discloses the positions of the deflection element and the guide element are adjustable in relation to one another (in that the deflection element rotates, changing the position of the deflection element relative to the guide element) (Everette, Figures 6A and 6B). Regarding claim 10, Everette further discloses the rope break having a second stop (6) configured to limit the movement of the deflection element wherein the second stop is arranged such that the distance between the fastening section and the guide element is always greater than the diameter of the belay rope. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Everette discloses the deflection element as a uniform piece with the distance between the fastening section and braking section being fixed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: EP 2554219. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm. 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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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. /KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 24, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599802
TRAINING MECHANISM AND ROBOT FOR WATER-BASED LOWER-LIMB REHABILITATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599114
Cover for a Retractable Dog Leash
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588603
INTERENGAGEABLE CONTAINERS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582850
CABLE SLEEVE FOR FALL PROTECTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582058
PRODUCTION FACILITY LAYOUTS FOR AUTOMATED CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AGRICULTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
69%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+21.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1250 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