Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/392,403

POWER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR A STANDBY GENERATOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Priority
Jul 31, 2013 — provisional 61/860,486 +6 more
Examiner
SMITH, COURTNEY L
Art Unit
2835
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Briggs & Stratton LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
1081 granted / 1265 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1292
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1265 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Newly submitted claims 21-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Regarding Claim(s) 21, the amended claim language newly presents claim language previously asserted by the claim construction defined by claims 1, and 3-5 which have been presented only in-part while omitting the structure defined by claim 3 including “the controller is positioned within a housing” as previously examined in the non-final action mailed on 2/17/26 and is deemed as constructively elected and defines a fixed claim construction, as per the MPEP sections below. The office hereby notes that the newly presented claim construction constitutes a new search which atleast requires a different search strategy, search queries and/or different interpretations of prior art thereof to determine allowability; whereas the claim language defined by the new claim has only previously been examined in combination with the omitted claim language. Accordingly, claims 21-26 are herein withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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. 2. 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 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 Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 27-31, are hereby deemed as allowed. Response to Arguments 4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-26 have been considered but are moot; wherein the claims are hereby deemed as non-elected since the constructively elected assertions previously defined by claims 1, and 3-5 have been presented only in-part, and relative to that which has already been examined is construed as a different invention, as above-mentioned. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 2841
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 13, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12697261
Patient Support Apparatus With An Accessory Support
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12690175
ARRANGEMENT FOR COOLING A POWER MODULE, AND POWER MODULE
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12689188
EXPANDABLE POWER DISTRIBUTION UNIT FOR UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12690169
HEAT RADIATION STRUCTURE, ELECTRONIC APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12689189
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+11.9%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1265 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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