Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
3Helix Inc. maintains a patent portfolio in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. The company currently has 2 pending office actions. These 2 actions are both being reviewed within 1 distinct art unit, indicating a high degree of technical focus within the medical device and mechanical sectors. Prosecution is handled by 2 distinct examiners.
Kevin S Orwig is identified as the busiest examiner for the portfolio, with 1 busiest examiner pending action. Since there are 2 distinct examiners for 2 pending actions, the workload is evenly split. This means each examiner is responsible for 1 action, even though both cases are being processed within the same 1 distinct art unit.
The concentration of 2 pending office actions within 1 distinct art unit suggests that the company's innovations are closely related. Practitioners can benefit from this by applying consistent technical arguments across both cases. However, they must still account for the individual examination styles of the 2 distinct examiners assigned to the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering portfolio.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 1 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date; the rest are excluded from the tile counts.
Difficulty is derived from the rejection statutes on the most recent pending office action. §101-driven and multi-statute cases are graded Hard; §112-only and obviousness-type double-patenting cases are graded Easy; everything else is Medium. "Unknown" means we have not yet parsed a statute for that office action.
| Bucket | Cases |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (100%) |
How the docket's pending cases split across USPTO tech-center bands.
Manual office-action response work runs about 10 hours per case. The time-saved bands below show what IP Author's prosecution pipeline typically delivers — a conservative 20% on the low end, 35% in the middle, 50% on the high end.
| Examiner | Apps on this docket | Allow rate | Interview lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| ORWIG, KEVIN S | 1 | 25.5% | +40.1% |
| SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M | 1 | 69.4% | +26.7% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18688621 | Systems and Methods for Detecting Fibrosis | SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M | 46d overdue |
| 18698649 | Biologically Active Collagen Hybridizing Peptides | ORWIG, KEVIN S | — |
Cases in front of an examiner whose interview lift is 10 percentage points or more — i.e. interviewed cases historically resolve more favorably than non-interviewed ones. The top 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18688621 | Systems and Methods for Detecting Fibrosis | SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M | 46d overdue |
| 18698649 | Biologically Active Collagen Hybridizing Peptides | ORWIG, KEVIN S | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3797 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18698649 | Biologically Active Collagen Hybridizing Peptides | ORWIG, KEVIN S | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 04, 2024 |
| 18688621 | Systems and Methods for Detecting Fibrosis | SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, JOSEPH M | 3797 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 46d overdue | Pending | Mar 01, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial