Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/775,178

CHAINSAW

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Priority
Sep 04, 2020 — provisional 63/074,949 +3 more
Examiner
FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
1286 granted / 1739 resolved
+4.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1751
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1739 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 02/10/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,894. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of claim 1 of the instant invention are to be found in claims 1 of the U.S. Patent. The difference between claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the U.S. Patent lies in the fact that the U.S. Patent include many more features and thus much more specific (for example, a protrusion pivotably coupled to the trigger for movement with the trigger between the OFF position and the ON position, and wherein the protrusion engages the trigger lock-off to inhibit movement of the trigger from the OFF position to the ON position). Since claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the U.S. Patent. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claim is allowable because the prior art fails to teach a protrusion pivotably coupled to the trigger for movement with the trigger between the OFF position and the ON position, and wherein the protrusion engages the trigger lock-off to inhibit movement of the trigger from the OFF position to the ON position as set forth in claims 1, 9, and 16. Wappat teaches a housing 1, switch 13, and trigger 16. Fukinuki teaches a resilient protrusion 50 and 36 is for locking-on the trigger. However, the combination of Wappat with Fukinuki fails to teach the protrusion engages the trigger lock-off to inhibit movement of the trigger from the OFF position to the ON position. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday8:00-4:00 pm. 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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. /OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12741394
PUNCHING UNIT AND SHEET POST-PROCESSING DEVICE
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741329
BLADE ASSEMBLY WITH VENTILATION OPENINGS
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12728512
CHISEL
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12728336
RUST BLOCKER
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12722320
BEAM HOLE PUNCHER
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 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
74%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1739 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