Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/935,139

CHUCK ASSEMBLY FOR A ROTARY POWER TOOL

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 01, 2024
Examiner
RUFO, RYAN C
Art Unit
3722
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
376 granted / 634 resolved
-10.7% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
693
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§112
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 634 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (illustrated in Figures 14-20D) in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 and 21-23 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.1 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of jaws received within the plurality of openings” in Line 4. It is unclear whether this is a respective relationship between each of the plurality or if there is more than one jaw within the openings. Appropriate clarification required. Claim 6 recites “the plate has a greater thickness proximate the central aperture than proximate an outer periphery of the plate.” The term “proximate” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required. Claim 9 recites “an axial movement of the collar is limited when the end of the respective thread is received in the recess.” The term “when” creates a lack of clarity as to whether the limitation is required at all if the “when” condition does not occur. Appropriate correction required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott (US Pub. No. 2021/0331255 A1) in view of Zeng et al. (WO 2019/178777 A1). (Claim 1) Abbott discloses a chuck assembly (300) for a rotary power tool (Figs. 9-13C; ¶ 0128). The chuck assembly includes: a body (334) rotatable about a central axis (350), the body including a plurality of openings (362); a plurality of jaws (338) received within the plurality of openings in the body (¶ 0130; Figs. 10-13C); a collar (342, 346) surrounding the body (Figs. 9-13C), the collar including a stepped portion (410) configured to engage the plurality of jaws to limit radial movement of the plurality of jaws (Fig. 12-13C); and a spring (432) biasing the collar such that the stepped portion is biased into engagement with the plurality of jaws (¶¶ 0135-0137). Abbott does not explicitly disclose the body having a first set of threads and a second set of threads coupled for co-rotation with the collar and engageable with the first set of threads on the body such that rotation of the collar relative to the body causes the collar to move axially along the body. Zeng et al. (“Zeng”) discloses a body (13) having a first set of threads (132) and a second set of threads (116) coupled for co-rotation with the collar (via 117) and engageable with the first set of threads on the body (Figs. 2, 3, 8) such that rotation of the collar relative to the body causes the collar to move axially along the body (Page 10, Lines 10-15). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the body and collar (i.e., plate 346 attached thereto) disclosed in Abbott with the first set of threads and second set of threads as suggested by Zeng in order to provide incremental advancement (along threads) with axial advancement retention capability as well as sliding translation between respective threads of the set (via slot 133). (Claim 2) A plate (Abbott 346) coupled for co-rotation with the collar (Abbott ¶ 0134). The plate includes a central aperture (Abbott Figs. 10-13C). The body extends through the central aperture (Abbott Figs. 10-13C). (Claim 3) The second set of threads is formed in the plate about a periphery of the central aperture (Abbott 346; Zeng 116). (Claim 4) The spring has a first end that engages the body and a second end that engages the plate (Abbott Fig. 12). (Claims 5 and 6) The plate in Abbott is not explicitly disclosed as having a non-uniform thickness with the greater thickness proximate the central aperture than the outer periphery. The plate (115) disclosed in Zeng has a non-uniform thickness (Fig. 9). The plate has a greater thickness, as bet understood, proximate the central aperture than proximate an outer periphery of the plate (Fig. 9). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the plate disclosed in Abbott with a non-uniform thickness as suggested by Zeng as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions - uniform thickness and non-uniform thickness - leading the predictable result of a plate translatable axially along the body. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness). (Claim 7) The spring in Abbott is not explicitly disclosed as a conical coil spring. Zeng discloses a conical coil spring (120). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the chuck disclosed in Abbott with a conical coil spring as suggested by Zeng as simple substitution of one known element for another obtaining a predictable result (applying pressure between the plate and the body). See KSR, 550 at 418. (Claim 8) In the modified device, each thread of the second set of threads includes a recess configured to receive an end of a respective thread of the first set of threads (Zeng Fig. 2; Page 10, Lines 6-10). (Claim 9) In the modified device, an axial movement of the collar is limited when the end of the respective thread is received in the recess (Zeng Fig. 2; Page 10, Lines 11-13). (Claim 10) Each jaw (Abbott 338) of the plurality of jaws includes a stepped outer surface engageable with the stepped portion of the collar (Abbott Figs. 12-13C). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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. /RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 1 Claim 11 requires a locking assembly, which is disclosed as part of unelected species.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 01, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594611
ROTARY TOOL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING MACHINED PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589442
SELF-ADJUSTING POCKET HOLE JIG SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583040
TOOL HOLDER FOR TOOL ASSEMBLY AND TOOL ASSEMBLY COMPRISING TOOL HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12508660
Rotary cutting tool and holding element for a rotary cutting tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12496641
POCKET HOLE JIG
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 634 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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