Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/257,469

Harness for an Animal

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 02, 2025
Examiner
GRABER, MARIA EILEEN
Art Unit
3644
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
141 granted / 237 resolved
+7.5% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+35.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
262
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 237 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This action is in response to the application 19/257,469 filed 7/2/2025 which is a Continuation of application 18/375,779 (US PATENT 12382929), which is a CIP of 18/207,029. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,929 B2 (hereinafter ‘929). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: RE Claim 1: ‘929 discloses a harness for an animal (claim 1, ln 1) comprising: a collar, a closed loop, and a link connecting an upper section of the collar and the closed loop (claim 1, ln 1-3), wherein the closed loop has a loop width and a loop height (claim 1, ln 4-5), wherein the loop width runs along a torso line that is perpendicular to a vertebral column of the animal (claim 1, ln 5-7), and wherein the loop width and the loop height are variable pending whether the leash is pulled or is resting so that when a leash attached to the closed loop is not pulled the loop width increases perpendicular to a vertebral column to loosen a right extension and a left extension around an underside of the animal and when the leash is pulled the loop width decreases perpendicular to a vertebral column to pull the right extension and the left extension (claim 1, ln 7-14), wherein the right extension connects to the left extension (claim 1, ln 17-20), wherein the right extension is connected to the closed loop and the left extension is connected to the closed loop (claim 1, ln 22-24), wherein a right tab and a left tab are attached to the closed loop so that the right extension is connected to the closed loop by the right tab and the left extension is connected to the closed loop by the left tab (claim 1, ln 25-28), and wherein either or both the right tab and the left tab are slidably attached to the closed loop to slide along the closed loop (claim 1, ln 29-31). RE Claim 2: ‘929 discloses the harness for an animal of claim 1, wherein the right tab has a right tab opening, and the left tab has a left tab opening so that the closed loop is inserted through both the right tab opening and the left tab opening so that either or both the right tab and the left tab slide along the closed loop (claim 2). RE Claim 3: ‘929 discloses the harness for an animal of claim 2, wherein a ring is attached to the link or to the closed loop so that a leash can be attached to the ring (claim 3). RE Claim 4: ‘929 discloses the harness for an animal of claim 3, wherein the link has a hole formed at an extremity of the link, away from the collar and next to the closed loop, so the ring is inserted through the hole and the ring is free to rotate about the hole (claim 4). RE Claim 5: ‘929 discloses the harness for an animal of claim 4, wherein the link comprises of an upper link and a lower link, and the link covers an entire collar width and an entire closed loop width (claim 5). RE Claim 6: ‘929 discloses the harness for an animal of claim 5, wherein a right strap is attached to the right extension and a left strap is attached to the left extension, wherein the right strap has a right buckle used to adjust length of the right strap and the left strap has a left buckle used to adjust length of the left strap, and wherein the upper link is longer than the lower link to form a gap between the upper link and the lower link (claim 6). RE Claim 7: ‘929 discloses a harness for an animal comprising: a collar designed to strap around a neck of the animal, a closed loop, and a link connecting an upper section of the collar and the closed loop (claim 1, ln 1-3), wherein the closed loop has a loop width and a loop height (claim 1, ln 4-5), wherein the loop width runs along a torso line that is perpendicular to a vertebral column of the animal (claim 1, ln 5-7), and wherein the loop width and the loop height are variable pending whether the leash is pulled or is resting so that when a leash attached to the closed loop is not pulled the loop width increases perpendicular to a vertebral column to loosen a right extension and a left extension around an underside of the animal and when the leash is pulled the loop width decreases perpendicular to a vertebral column to pull the right extension and the left extension (claim 1, ln 7-14), wherein the right extension connects to the left extension (claim 1, ln 17-20), wherein the right extension is connected to the closed loop and the left extension is connected to the closed loop (claim 1, ln 22-24), wherein a right tab and a left tab are attached to the closed loop so that the right extension is connected to the closed loop by the right tab and the left extension is connected to the closed loop by the left tab (claim 1, ln 25-28), and wherein either or both the right tab and the left tab are slidably attached to the closed loop to slide along the closed loop (claim 1, ln 29-31). RE Claim 8: ‘929 discloses a harness for an animal comprising: a collar designed to wrap around a neck of the animal, a closed loop, and a link connecting an upper section of the collar and the closed loop (claim 1, ln 1-3), wherein the closed loop has a loop width and a loop height (claim 1, ln 4-5), wherein the loop width runs along a torso line that is perpendicular to a vertebral column of the animal (claim 1, ln 5-7), and wherein the loop width and the loop height are variable pending whether the leash is pulled or is resting so that when a leash attached to the closed loop is not pulled the loop width increases perpendicular to a vertebral column to loosen a right extension and a left extension around an underside of the animal and when the leash is pulled the loop width decreases perpendicular to a vertebral column to pull the right extension and the left extension (claim 1, ln 7-14), wherein the right extension connects to the left extension (claim 1, ln 17-20), wherein the right extension is connected to the closed loop and the left extension is connected to the closed loop (claim 1, ln 22-24), wherein a right tab and a left tab are attached to the closed loop so that the right extension is connected to the closed loop by the right tab and the left extension is connected to the closed loop by the left tab (claim 1, ln 25-28), and wherein either or both the right tab and the left tab are slidably attached to the closed loop to slide along the closed loop (claim 1, ln 29-31). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various harnesses for pets with straps and fasteners. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5. 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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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. /MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 02, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599066
PLANTING COLUMN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593759
LIGHT, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GROWING PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588666
Fishing Lure
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575543
SEMI-AUTOMATIC COMBING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568931
Pet Feeder
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+35.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 237 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