Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/082,372

STRING TRIMMER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 18, 2025
Priority
Jun 19, 2020 — provisional 63/041,625 +1 more
Examiner
FLORES SANCHEZ, OMAR
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
1275 granted / 1727 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1740
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1727 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,274,201. 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 13-14 of the U.S. Patent. The difference between claim 1 of the instant application and claims 13-14 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 heat sink and a circuit board that comprises a controller configured to control the electric motor, wherein the electric motor includes a rotor assembly and a stator assembly surrounding the rotor assembly, wherein the circuit board comprises a first circuit board located between the stator assembly and the heat sink, and wherein the heat sink comprises a radial wall that contacts the circuit board and a plurality of cooling flanges that extend from an outer circumferential edge of the radial wall toward the stator assembly). Since claim 1 is anticipated by claims 13-14 of the U.S. Patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 13-14 of the U.S. Patent. Conclusion 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 at 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

Mar 18, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12669793
PRECISION-CUT CASING TUBULAR FOR CENTRALIZER ASSEMBLY
3y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667931
POWER TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667933
Evolutionary Compensation Method for Spindle Rotation Error of Computer Numerical Control Grinding Machine Based on Timing In-Situ Measurement
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12667987
POCKETKNIFE WITH ENHANCED SAFETY FEATURES
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12654342
Reusable Gift Tag with Safety Cutter
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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 (+14.4%)
2y 10m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1727 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