Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
4G Clinical, LLC operates within the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area with a portfolio characterized by a point of interaction at the USPTO involving 1 pending office action. This action is being handled by a distinct examiner within a distinct art unit, reflecting a concentrated prosecution effort. For a practitioner, this means that the intellectual property strategy for this entity is currently subject to the scrutiny of a regulatory path without the benefit of multiple perspectives.
COLEMAN, CHARLES P. is the busiest examiner for this portfolio, holding 1 pending office action. For patent counsel, this means that the success of the current filing depends on the examination style of COLEMAN, CHARLES P. Monitoring the specific preferences and past allowance rates of this individual is essential because there are no other examiners involved to provide a baseline for comparison.
The presence of a distinct art unit reinforces that the prosecution strategy does not currently require navigating multiple technical standards within the USPTO. This lack of diversity in the examination process simplifies the administrative burden but increases the reliance on an individual examiner's interpretation. Practitioners should prepare for a focused dialogue with the patent office that centers on the specific precedents established within the identified art unit.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 2 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 |
|---|---|
| §101 only | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 2 | 16.0% | +19.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17863459 | Generating RTSM Systems for Clinical Trials | COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 29d overdue |
| 18100388 | AUTOMATED RANDOMIZATION VALIDATION FOR AN RTSM SYSTEM | COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 29d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17863459 | Generating RTSM Systems for Clinical Trials | COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 29d overdue |
| 18100388 | AUTOMATED RANDOMIZATION VALIDATION FOR AN RTSM SYSTEM | COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 29d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3683 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18100388 | AUTOMATED RANDOMIZATION VALIDATION FOR AN RTSM SYSTEM | COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 3683 | §101 | Non-Final OA | 29d | Pending | Jan 23, 2023 |
| 17863459 | Generating RTSM Systems for Clinical Trials | COLEMAN, CHARLES P. | 3683 | §101 | Non-Final OA | 29d overdue | Pending | Jul 13, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial