Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/175,183

MODULAR POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 27, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, COURTNEY L
Art Unit
2835
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Legrand Av INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1062 granted / 1244 resolved
+17.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1280
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1244 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claims 1-14, and 22-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Regarding Claim 1, the amended claim language of claims 1 and 6 in-part asserts “configured to align” in the last two lines of the amended claim 1 and has excluded “complementary” from the allowable claim construction as previously presented in claim 6 line 5, and thus the newly presented claim construction is hereby deemed to constitute a different claim constructions which reads on a different inventive structure and require separate search strategy and/or search queries thereof to consider allowability. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-14, and 22-23 are herein withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 3. The office herein notes related MPEP excerpts which pertain hereto as follows: 821.03 Claims for Different Invention Added After an Office Action [R-3] PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Claims added by amendment following action by the examiner, MPEP § 818.01, § 818.02(a), to an invention other than previously claimed, should be treated as indicated by 37 CFR 1.145. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale 37 C.F.R. 1.145 Subsequent presentation of claims for different invention. If, after an office action on an application, the applicant presents claims directed to an invention distinct from and independent of the invention previously claimed, the applicant will be required to restrict the claims to the invention previously claimed if the amendment is entered, subject to reconsideration and review as provided in §§ 1.143 and 1.144 PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale The action should include form paragraph 8.04. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale ¶ 8.04 Election by Original Presentation Newly submitted claim [1] directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: [2] PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim [3] withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale > A < complete action on all claims to the elected invention should be given. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale An amendment canceling all claims drawn to the elected invention and presenting only claims drawn to the nonelected invention should not be entered. Such an amendment is nonresponsive. Applicant should be notified by using form paragraph 8.26. 818.01 Election Fixed by Action on Claims Election becomes fixed when the claims in an application have received an action on their merits by the Office. 4. The office also notes that the new claim construction(s) will be subject to an election by original presentation even if presented upon an RCE, as follows: 819 Office Generally Does Not Permit Shift [R-3] PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale The general policy of the Office is not to permit the applicant to shift to claiming another invention after an election is once made and action given on the elected subject matter. Note that the applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). When claims are presented which the examiner holds are drawn to an invention other than the one elected, he or she should treat the claims as outlined in MPEP § 821.03. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 15-17, and 19-21, are hereby deemed as allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants appear to argue a restriction requirement made on 4/23/25 which is not the subject of the election by original presentation presented on 1/5/26; and otherwise requires the applicant to maintain the same claim construction, as previously examined and deemed as allowed. The applicant appears to argue on pages 10-12 that the applicant has amended claim 6 to narrow the scope of the claim. However, the office otherwise notes that excluding “complementary” broadens the assertion by only asserting “configured to align” and constitutes a different claim construction from that which has already been examined and deemed as allowable. It is to be noted that changing the claim construction of the allowable subject matter cannot, as a matter of right be presented only in-part to remove structures, functions, associations therebetween or any intervening claims or limitations thereof. As such, the election by original presentation is herein maintained, and the applicant shall feel free to present the allowable subject matter as previously presented to be entered and allowed After-Final. Conclusion 7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p. 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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. /COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598726
Control Module for a Vehicle With at Least an Electric Motor and a Transmission
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593423
FLOW-THROUGH FOLDING MEMBRANE ACCUMULATOR FOR LIQUID COOLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586992
SCALABLE RECONFIGURABLE APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM EMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581616
FLUID, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMMERSION COOLING OBJECTS HAVING PLASTICIZED SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575057
STRUCTURALLY ENHANCED FAN LOUVER ASSEMBLY
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+5.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1244 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