Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/278,718

MULTICOMPARTMENT BAG FOR CULTIVATION OF CELLS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Mar 23, 2021
Examiner
BOWERS, NATHAN ANDREW
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Global Life Sciences Solutions Usa LLC
OA Round
6 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
796 granted / 1346 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
66 currently pending
Career history
1412
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1346 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1-17, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent claims 1 and 24 require “a plurality of cultivation compartments” and “one or more ports”, such that “each of the plurality of cultivation compartments include one of the one or more ports”. It is unclear how many ports are required by the claims. The term “one or more ports” reads on configurations where the bag comprises only a single port, while the term “each of the plurality of cultivation compartments include one of the one or more ports” requires that there must be more than one port (i.e., at least one port for each of the multiple compartments). Figure 1, for example, shows that each compartment is serviced by a different collection of ports, and so it is unclear how a single port (“one or more ports”) would fulfill the limitation “each of the plurality of cultivation compartments include one of the one or more ports”. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-13, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer (US 20170044477) in view of Riese (US 4637061). With respect to claims 1, 3, 9 and 10, Gebauer teaches a flexible plastic bag (Figure 3:42) for the cultivation of cells. Paragraph [0023] states that a top wall film and a bottom wall film are sealed to each other by durable weld seams to form the inner volume of the bag. A plurality of ports (Figure 3:54,55)are provided to introduce and withdraw fluids to and from the inner volume. A plurality of frangible weld seams (Figure 3:52) join the insides of the top and bottom wall films and divide the inner volume into a plurality of cultivation compartments (Figure 3:45,46,47), which allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another. This is described in paragraph [0029]. Figs. 1-3 show that each of the plurality of cultivation compartments include one or more of the plurality of ports. Gebauer, however, states that the frangible weld seams are ruptured by mechanical action from the outside of the bag, but does not expressly state that a plurality of gripping means are provided adjacent to each frangible weld seam. Riese discloses a flexible plastic bag comprising a top wall film (Figure 2:19) and a bottom wall film (Figure 2:21) sealed to each other inside-to-inside by durable weld seams (Figure 1:35) to form a bag with an inner volume delimited by the durable weld seams. One or more ports (Figure 5:55) are provided for introducing and withdrawing fluids to or from the inner volume. A plurality of frangible seals (Figure 1:23) join the insides of the top and bottom wall films and divide the inner volume into a plurality of compartments (Figure 5:13,15). A plurality of gripping means (Figure 2:29) are affixed to the top and bottom wall films. Each of the plurality of gripping means is adjacent to a specific frangible seal and is adapted to break that specific frangible seal by pulling apart the gripping means. Fig. 2, for example, shows that the gripping means may be positioned above the frangible seal so that the gripping means are directly attached to a single compartment. This is described in column 4, line 64 to column 6, line 2. Riese further contemplates embodiments in which multiple chambers, frangible seals and gripping means are provided (“The drawings show a container having two chambers but it is to be understood that a container may have three chambers or more. Each chamber should be selectively sealed by a reclosable interior fastener with gripper flaps associated with each fastener”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Gebauer plastic bag with a plurality of gripping means that are each paired to and configured to break a specific frangible seal. Riese teaches that gripping means, such as flaps, “facilitate the opening” of the frangible seal and are readily added to the exterior of a plastic bag using known techniques. Riese shows how the incorporation of gripping means coupled to specific frangible seals offers greater control over the selective opening and closing of multiple compartments within a bag. With respect to claim 2, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. The gripping means 29 of Riese are described as “flaps”, which is understood to read on “a tab of film”, “a handle” and “a fold”. With respect to claim 4, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, both Gebauer and Riese teach bags in which the top and bottom wall films are directly sealed to each other along their edges by durable weld seams. With respect to claim 5, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. Gebauer teaches the cultivation compartments may also comprise one more sensors for temperature, which reads on the instant claim limitation of one or more sensors adapted to measure at least one property in at least one cultivation compartment. With respect to claim 6, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. Gebauer additionally teaches that many other sensors, such as cell density sensors, are used to measure cell viability. See paragraph [0030]. With respect to claim 7, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. Gebauer additionally teaches in paragraph [0024] that the bag assembly of the invention can be arranged on a rocking tray (Figure 1:13), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a bag adapted to be attached to a moving table platform for agitation. With respect to claim 8, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. Gebauer teaches the bag assemblies can be presterilized such as by radiation sterilization. See paragraph [0031]. With respect to claims 11-13, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. Gebauer teaches the bag assembly of the invention can be arranged on a rocking tray, which reads on the instant claim limitation of a bag attached to a moving table platform for agitation of said bag. With respect to claim 24, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. The durable weld seams of Gebauer and Riese are each pulled apart without damaging top and bottom wall films using a force between 5N and 80N. With respect to claim 25, Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, Gebauer indicates that it is desirable to use a flexible plastic bag as a cultivation bag characterized by a cultivation chamber configured to receive cultivation medium. Gebauer shows in Figs. 1-3 how the second cultivation compartment is at least 120% the volume of the first cultivation compartment, and how the third cultivation compartment is at least 120% the volume of the second cultivation compartment. See paragraph [0022]. Claims 1-13, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barney (US 5462526) in view of Riese (US 4637061) and Gebauer (US 20170044477). With respect to claims 1 and 3, Barney discloses a flexible plastic bag comprising a top wall film (Figure 2:12) and a bottom wall film (Figure 2:14) sealed to each other inside-to-inside by durable weld seams (Figure 1:16) to form a bag with an inner volume delimited by the durable weld seams. One or more ports (Figure 2:40) are provided for introducing and withdrawing fluids to or from the inner volume. A plurality of frangible weld seams (Figure 1:24,26) join the insides of the top and bottom wall films and divide the inner volume into a plurality of compartments (Figure 1:18,20,22). This is described in column 4, line 12 to column 5, line 14 and column 6, lines 49-64. The flexible bag and compartments are fully capable of holding a variety of different fluids, including fluid for the cultivation of cells. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Barney, however, states that the frangible weld seams are ruptured by squeezing the bag, and therefore does not teach that a plurality of gripping means are provided adjacent to each frangible weld seam. Riese discloses a flexible plastic bag comprising a top wall film (Figure 2:19) and a bottom wall film (Figure 2:21) sealed to each other inside-to-inside by durable weld seams (Figure 1:35) to form a bag with an inner volume delimited by the durable weld seams. One or more ports (Figure 5:55) are provided for introducing and withdrawing fluids to or from the inner volume. A plurality of frangible seals (Figure 1:23) join the insides of the top and bottom wall films and divide the inner volume into a plurality of compartments (Figure 5:13,15). A plurality of gripping means (Figure 2:29) are affixed to the top and bottom wall films. Each of the plurality of gripping means is adjacent to a specific frangible seal and is adapted to break that specific frangible seal by pulling apart the gripping means. Fig. 2, for example, shows that the gripping means may be positioned above the frangible seal so that the gripping means are directly attached to a single compartment. This is described in column 4, line 64 to column 6, line 2. Riese further contemplates embodiments in which multiple chambers, frangible seals and gripping means are provided (“The drawings show a container having two chambers but it is to be understood that a container may have three chambers or more. Each chamber should be selectively sealed by a reclosable interior fastener with gripper flaps associated with each fastener”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the Barney plastic bag with a plurality of gripping means that are each paired to and configured to break a specific frangible seal. Riese teaches that gripping means, such as flaps, “facilitate the opening” of the frangible seal and are readily added to the exterior of a plastic bag using known techniques. Riese shows how the incorporation of gripping means coupled to specific frangible seals offers greater control over the selective opening and closing of multiple compartments within a bag. Barney and Riese still differ from Applicant’s claimed invention. Barney appears to show only a single port and therefore does not expressly teach that each of the plurality of compartments includes a port. Gebauer teaches a flexible plastic bag (Figure 3:42) for the cultivation of cells. Paragraph [0023] states that a top wall film and a bottom wall film are sealed to each other by durable weld seams to form the inner volume of the bag. A plurality of ports (Figure 3:54,55) are provided to introduce and withdraw fluids to and from the inner volume. A plurality of frangible weld seams (Figure 3:52) join the insides of the top and bottom wall films and divide the inner volume into a plurality of cultivation compartments (Figure 3:45,46,47), which allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another. This is described in paragraph [0029]. Figs. 1-3 show that each of the plurality of cultivation compartments include one or more of the plurality of ports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide each of Barney’s compartments with at least one port. Gebauer teaches that this allows one to separately add and remove fluid from each compartment. Those of ordinary skill would have understood that this would allow the Barney bag to be used for a greater range of applications, such as cell culture. It is well established that a mere duplication of parts (here, the provision of multiple ports so that each compartment interfaces with a port) that produces an art-recognized benefit and/or a predictable cumulative result is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04. With respect to claim 2, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination as described above. The gripping means 29 of Riese are described as “flaps”, which is understood to read on “a tab of film”, “a handle” and “a fold”. With respect to claim 4, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, both Barney and Riese teach bags in which the top and bottom wall films are directly sealed to each other along their edges by durable weld seams. With respect to claims 5, 9 and 10, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination discussed above in claim 1. Further, Riese teaches that the compartments are configured to receive a biological specimen. Gebauer additionally teaches the cultivation compartments may also comprises one more sensors for temperature, which reads on the instant claim limitation of one or more sensors adapted to measure at least one property in at least one cultivation compartment. This is taught in paragraphs [0022]-0030]. With respect to claim 6, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the invention discussed above in claim 5. Gebauer further teaches a cell density sensor (see paragraph [0030]), which reads on the instant claim limitation of at least one of said sensors is a viable cell density sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Barney to include at least one of said sensors is a viable cell density sensor as taught by Gebauer, in order to sufficiently allow for the monitoring of cells in the compartment of the apparatus. Further, Gebauer teaches the one or more sampling outlets, inlets for culture medium of the device provide for the measuring of cell density of a cultivation compartment. With respect to claim 7, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination discussed above in claim 1. Further, Barney teaches a bag (pouch) discussed above. However, Barney does not teach a bag adapted to be attached to a moving table platform, such as a rocking table platform, for agitation. Gebauer teaches a flexible bag assembly which allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another, and Gebauer teaches the bag assembly of the invention can be arranged on a rocking tray (Figure 1:13), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a bag adapted to be attached to a moving table platform, such as a rocking table platform, for agitation. See paragraph [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Barney to include a bag adapted to be attached to a moving table platform, such as a rocking table platform, for agitation as taught by Gebauer, because Gebauer teaches the rocking tray platform of the invention can provide agitation during cultivation. Gebauer expressly mentions that such a rocking operation is safe and convenient, is accomplished automatically without user oversight, and “allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another without risk of premature leakage between compartments or of bag damage”. With respect to claim 8, Barney, Giese and Gebauer disclose the combination discussed above in claim 1. Further, Barney teaches a bag (pouch) discussed above. However, Barney does not explicitly teach that the bag is supplied presterilized, such as by radiation sterilization. Gebauer teaches a flexible bag assembly which allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another, and Gebauer teaches the bag assemblies can be presterilized such as by radiation sterilization (paragraph [0031]), which reads on the instant claim limitation of supplied presterilized, such as by radiation sterilization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Barney to include supplied presterilized, such as by radiation sterilization as taught by Gebauer. Gebauer teaches that bag assemblies should be sterilized to prevent contamination, especially when used for cell culture, and that pre-sterilization is useful for end-users who may not be equipped to conduct a sterilization operation. With respect to claims 11-13, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination discussed above in claim 1. Further, Barney teaches a bag (pouch) comprised of polymeric sheets discussed above. However, Barney does not teach a bag attached to a moving table platform for agitation of said bag. Gebauer teaches a flexible bag assembly which allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another, and Gebauer teaches the bag assembly of the invention can be arranged on a rocking tray (Figure 1:13), which reads on the instant claim limitation of a bag attached to a moving table platform for agitation of said bag. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Barney to include a bag attached to a moving table platform for agitation of said bag as taught by Gebauer, because Gebauer teaches the rocking tray platform of the invention can provide agitation during cultivation. Gebauer expressly mentions that such a rocking operation is safe and convenient, is accomplished automatically without user oversight, and “allows transfer of a cell culture from one cultivation compartment to another without risk of premature leakage between compartments or of bag damage”. With respect to claim 24, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination as described above. The durable weld seams of Barney, Riese and Gebauer are each pulled apart without damaging top and bottom wall films using a force between 5N and 80N. With respect to claim 25, Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination as described above. As previously discussed, Gebauer indicates that it is desirable to use a flexible plastic bag as a cultivation bag characterized by a cultivation chamber configured to receive cultivation medium. Gebauer shows in Figs. 1-3 how the second cultivation compartment is at least 120% the volume of the first cultivation compartment, and how the third cultivation compartment is at least 120% the volume of the second cultivation compartment. See also paragraph [0022]. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebauer (US 20170044477) in view of Riese (US 4637061) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Dumont (US 5641039). Gebauer and Riese disclose the combination as described above. Gebauer and Riese each teach a plurality of bag compartments. Gebauer shows how a moving table platform can be manipulated to successively transfer cell culture fluid from one compartment to the next in a controllable manner. Gebauer states that cell density sensors are provided to monitor cell growth, and that the sensors signal when it is time to deliver the cell culture medium from one compartment to the next (“The cultivation in the first compartment may be continued until a predetermined viable cell density (VCD) is reached…VCD may e.g. be measured with an inline biomass sensor…when the predetermined VCD has been reached, steps d) and further may be initiated. The transfer in step e) may be accomplished by gravity, e.g. by inclining the tray with the bags or raising it vertically”). The references, however, do not appear to teach a seam opener capable of pulling a specific gripping means to open a specific frangible weld seam. Dumont teaches an automated system for opening and closing a bag (Figure 3:51) comprising a gripping means. Dumont states that a seam opener (Figure 2:56) is configured to pull the bag gripping means until the bag is completely open. The seam opener then stops pulling to avoid any damage to the bag. This is described in column 6, line 45 to column 7, line 10. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the individual compartments of the modified Gebauer bag are opened using automated means that include a seam opener. Dumont teaches that bag manipulation using robotics is well known across a variety of different arts. Those of ordinary skill would have wanted to open the Gebauer frangible seams using an automated system, especially when the Gebauer bag is configured as a bioreactor. Gebauer teaches that valves and frangible seams should be opened automatically when it is detected that the cell culture medium should be transferred to the next bag compartment. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barney (US 5462526) in view of Riese (US 4637061) and Gebauer (US 10450540) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Dumont (US 5641039). Barney, Riese and Gebauer disclose the combination as described above. Barney, Riese and Gebauer each teach a plurality of bag compartments. Gebauer shows how a moving table platform can be manipulated to successively transfer cell culture fluid from one compartment to the next in a controllable manner. Gebauer states that cell density sensors are provided to monitor cell growth, and that the sensors signal when it is time to deliver the cell culture medium from one compartment to the next (“The cultivation in the first compartment may be continued until a predetermined viable cell density (VCD) is reached…VCD may e.g. be measured with an inline biomass sensor…when the predetermined VCD has been reached, steps d) and further may be initiated. The transfer in step e) may be accomplished by gravity, e.g. by inclining the tray with the bags or raising it vertically”). The references, however, do not appear to teach a seam opener capable of pulling a specific gripping means to open a specific frangible weld seam. Dumont teaches an automated system for opening and closing a bag (Figure 3:51) comprising a gripping means. Dumont states that a seam opener (Figure 2:56) is configured to pull the bag gripping means until the bag is completely open. The seam opener then stops pulling to avoid any damage to the bag. This is described in column 6, line 45 to column 7, line 10. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to ensure that the individual compartments of the modified Barney bag are opened using automated means that include a seam opener. Dumont teaches that bag manipulation using robotics is well known across a variety of different arts. Those of ordinary skill would have wanted to open the Barney frangible seams using an automated system, especially when the Barney bag is configured as a bioreactor. Gebauer teaches that valves and frangible seams should be opened automatically when it is detected that the cell culture medium should be transferred to the next bag compartment. Response to Arguments In response to Applicant’s amendment filed 25 November 2025, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Gebauer with Riese and the combination of Barney with Riese and Gebauer. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has also been made. 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 NATHAN ANDREW BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8613. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm. 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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. /NATHAN A BOWERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 23, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 07, 2024
Interview Requested
Jun 17, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 17, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 26, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 24, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 28, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 15, 2025
Response Filed
May 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 07, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 25, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599116
ENVIRONMENTAL TREATMENT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599277
MULTI-FUNCTIONAL AUTOMATED ROBOTIC SYSTEM FOR AQUACULTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595450
DYNAMIC MULTI ORGAN PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594693
Method and Device for Recycling Ropes
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595491
COMPOUND INTRODUCTION APPARATUS AND COMPOUND INTRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
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

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+32.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1346 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