Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/566,153

BLOCKING/BRAKING DEVICE FOR ADJUSTING A SAFETY ROPE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 01, 2023
Examiner
SAHNI, VISHAL R
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Skylotec GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
731 granted / 970 resolved
+23.4% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 970 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 12/01/23. The request for foreign priority to a corresponding IT application filed 06/04/21 has been received and is proper. Claims 1-24 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. Claims 16-23 are 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. Claims 16-21 are rejected because claim 16 recites “said body (10) defining a closed section (16)” and “said safety rope (2) defining a closed section (16).” Are these two closed sections (16) the same or not? If so, this double inclusion is improper and confusing. Claims 22-23 are rejected because claim 22 recites a method “…according to claims claim 1…” making it unclear as to whether claim 22 depends from one or multiple claims. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Chaumontet Claim(s) 1-7, 12-17, 20-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaumontet (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0313047). Chaumontet is directed to a safety rope blocker having a rotatable body. See Abstract. Claim 1: Blocking/braking device [Figs. 5, 9, 10] for adjusting a safety rope (2), comprising: an at least partially hollow body (3) provided with a path for said safety rope to pass inside said body between a first seat (14), adapted to accommodate a free branch (7) of said safety rope, and a second seat (20), adapted to accommodate a loaded branch (6) of said safety rope; said body comprising a main portion (3a, 3b), a first portion (8, at 14) and a second portion (11, at 20) defining between them a concavity (at 4) and said path comprising a first length (7 at 8) extending in said first portion and comprising said first seat, and at least one second length (6 at 11) extending at least in said second portion and comprising said second seat; and said concavity configured to be crossed by said safety rope when in use [see Fig. 5], said body defining a closed section (4) with said safety rope inside said concavity. See Figs. 5, 9, 10. Claim 2: Chaumontet discloses that said concavity extends substantially along a first axis and said first portion and second portion have a development axis substantially parallel to the first axis. See Figs. 5, 9, 10. Claim 3: Chaumontet discloses that said first portion and said second portion branch off from said main portion substantially parallel to the first axis of the concavity. See Figs. 5, 9, 10. Claim 4: Chaumontet discloses that the body of the device has a substantially U shape in one section thereof along a plane along said development axis. See Figs. 5, 9, 10 (at 4). Claim 5: Chaumontet discloses that said first length of the path is substantially rectilinear and wherein said at least one second length comprises at least one rectilinear sector extending at said second portion. See Fig. 5. Claim 6: Chaumontet discloses that said first length of said path extends along a second axis, said first length and said rectilinear sector of said at least one second length of the path being coaxial or angled to each other to form an angle between 140° and 180°. See Fig. 5. Claim 7: Chaumontet discloses that said second axis of development of said first length of the path and said first axis form an angle with each other between 60° and 120°. See Fig. 5. Claim 12: Chaumontet discloses that said first portion (13) and said second portion (14) each protrude from the main portion (11) forming two protuberances branching off from the main portion (11) of the body (10) of the device so as to define said concavity (15) therebetween. Claim 13: Chaumontet discloses that said concavity (15) is defined as a depression in a profile of the body (10) of the device. Claim 14: Chaumontet discloses that said first length (121) extends in said first portion (13) from said first seat (12a) to a first opening (12c) which faces said concavity (15). Claim 15: Chaumontet discloses that said at least one second length (122) extends from said second portion (14), where there is a second opening (12d) facing said concavity (15), to said main portion (11) where said second seat (12b) is arranged. Claim 16: Chaumontet is relied upon as in claim 1 above. Chaumontet further discloses said safety rope being configured to be inserted into said device with the free branch entering said first seat and with the loaded branch exiting from said second seat, said safety rope defining a closed section (4) with said body of the blocking/braking device; a connector (5) configured to be inserted into said closed section and to be crossed by said safety rope; said system blocking/braking being configured to be movable between a free sliding position, in which the safety rope is free to slide inside the path of said device, and a blocking/braking position, in which a sliding of the safety rope along said path is prevented or braked [see para. 0032-36]; the switching between said free sliding position and said blocking/braking position being determined by a relative rotation between the device and the connector. See Figs. 4-5; para. 0032-36. Claim 17: Chaumontet discloses that the connector is in contact with the body of the device when the system is in said free sliding position and wherein the connector contacts said safety rope when the system is in said blocking/breaking position. See Figs. 4-5; para. 0032-36. Claim 20: Chaumontet discloses that said safety rope comprises at least one end portion folded over at least one length of the safety rope. See Figs. 4-5. Claim 21: Chaumontet discloses that at least one said folded end portion is constrained to a length of the safety rope by sewing and/or by applying a heat-shrinking sheath or sleeve. See Figs. 4-5; para. 0032-36. Note: ‘method of making’ is not a structural limitation of the device. Claim 22: see claims 1 and 16 above. Claim 24: Chaumontet discloses that said concavity extends substantially along a development line which comprises at least one curvilinear length, or at least two rectilinear lengths angled to each other, or a combination of at least one curvilinear length and at least one rectilinear length. See Figs. 4-5, 9-10. 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. Chaumontet in view of Rice Claim(s) 8-11, 18-19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaumontet in view of Rice (U.S. Patent No. 119,997). Rice is directed to improvements in fire-escapes. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion. Claim 8: Chaumontet is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose a “movable insert” in the concavity of the body of the device. Rice discloses a safety rope device [Fig. 2] with an at least partially hollow body (C) provided with a path for said safety rope (A) to pass inside said body between a first seat (a), adapted to accommodate a free branch (top A) of said safety rope, and a second seat (c), adapted to accommodate a loaded branch (bottom A) of said safety rope, with a concavity (F) defined between two portions of the body comprising the respective seats, wherein there is a movable insert (D), said movable insert (17) being configured to be movably housed inside said concavity (15) and to be interposed between said safety rope and a connector (E) when in use. See Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a movable insert in Chaumontet because this provides for simple lever-actuations of the brake/release positions that are already disclosed in Chaumontet, similarly using a compressive/pinching mechanism on the safety rope. Claim 9: Rice discloses that said movable insert comprises an at least partially tubular first element, said first element having a housing configured to accommodate said safety rope when in use. See Fig. 2 (“accommodate” broadly construed). Claim 10: Rice discloses that the movable insert further comprises a second flat element adapted to be arranged to partially obstruct said closed section when in use, said second element being equipped with a hole. See Fig. 2 (curved in one plane, flat in another). Claim 11: Rice discloses that said second flat element comprises a slot for joining said movable insert to said body. See Fig. 2 (at E). Claim 18: Rice discloses a movable insert (D), said movable insert being configured to be movably housed inside said concavity and to be interposed between said safety rope and said connector when in use, wherein the connector acts indirectly, by contacting said movable insert, on said safety rope when the system is in the blocking/braking position. See Fig. 2 (via A). Claim 19: Chaumontet discloses that the movable insert comprises a second flat element adapted to be arranged to partially obstruct said closed section, said second element being equipped with a hole when in use, wherein said connector passes through said hole. See Fig. 2. Claim 23: Chaumontet discloses that, prior to said inserting said safety rope, movably housing a movable insert (D) inside said concavity. See Fig. 2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST. 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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. VISHAL SAHNI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3657 /VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 January 30, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 01, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600335
TRAILER BRAKING THROUGH TRAILER SUPPLY LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590613
PAD SHIELD FOR DISC BRAKE SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR THE USE AND ASSEMBLY THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584527
BRAKE CALIPER WITH A COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576822
SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AN ELECTRIC PARKING BRAKE BY PULSE WIDTH MODULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577996
BRAKE SYSTEMS HAVING BACK PLATES WITH THERMAL MANAGEMENT FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
75%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+19.3%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 970 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