Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/670,147

Tape Measure with Epicyclic Gear Drive for Tape Retraction

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 21, 2024
Priority
Mar 22, 2017 — provisional 62/474,872 +5 more
Examiner
BENNETT, GEORGE B
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
433 granted / 544 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
553
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
54.4%
+14.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§112
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 544 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the newly filed claims are obvious variations of the previously patented claims. It is old and well-known to use functionally equivalent components with a known apparatus for the purpose of achieving the same results. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the previously patented claims in the manner as claimed based on manufacturer and/or end-user preferences. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,427,434. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the newly filed claims are obvious variations of the previously patented claims. It is old and well-known to use functionally equivalent components with a known apparatus for the purpose of achieving the same results. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the previously patented claims in the manner as claimed based on manufacturer and/or end-user preferences. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,836,603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the newly filed claims are obvious variations of the previously patented claims. It is old and well-known to use functionally equivalent components with a known apparatus for the purpose of achieving the same results. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the previously patented claims in the manner as claimed based on manufacturer and/or end-user preferences. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. BRADLEY BENNETT whose telephone number is 571.272.2237. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 8:00-6:00. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571.272.2375. 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. /GEORGE B BENNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 gbb 15 APR 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12638284
Difference Maker Tape Measure and Method of Use
2y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631436
TRAVELING VEHICLE SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12624945
SURVEYING TARGET AND METHOD WITH LIGHT SECTOR POWER OPTIMIZATION
2y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12618666
ANTENNA ALIGNMENT APPARATUS
2y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12613094
LASER POCKET LEVEL MULTI-AXIS MICRO ADJUST
2y 7m to grant Granted Apr 28, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 544 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