Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Computing & Software
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Aeroseal LLC is managing 2 pending office actions in the Computing & Software technology area. These actions are split between 2 distinct examiners but are both located within 1 distinct art unit. This indicates that while the technical classification is consistent, the company is navigating the perspectives of two different reviewers. For the applicant, the use of 1 distinct art unit means that the general examination policies and prior art landscape will be similar for both cases, even if the 2 distinct examiners have different individual styles.
The busiest examiner, AZAD, MD ABUL K, is responsible for 1 pending office action. This represents 1 of the 2 total pending office actions. Because there are 2 distinct examiners in 1 distinct art unit, the applicant may experience different prosecution styles despite the shared technical focus of the art unit. Practitioners should be prepared to address the specific feedback from each examiner while maintaining a consistent overall strategy for the Computing & Software portfolio. The presence of 2 pending office actions suggests a moderate level of current activity within this specific technical group at the USPTO.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZAD, MD ABUL K | 1 | 81.5% | +20.9% |
| FARINA, MICHAEL VINCENT | 1 | 75.0% | +34.1% |
Cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate of 80%+ where the difficulty is Easy or Medium. The top 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18821250 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING HEAT TO ENCLOSURES DURING SEALING PROCESSES | AZAD, MD ABUL K | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18821250 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING HEAT TO ENCLOSURES DURING SEALING PROCESSES | AZAD, MD ABUL K | — |
| 18797635 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ORIFICE OF A TESTING DEVICE FOR PERFORMING A LEAKAGE TEST | FARINA, MICHAEL VINCENT | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 2119 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18821250 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING HEAT TO ENCLOSURES DURING SEALING PROCESSES | AZAD, MD ABUL K | 2119 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Aug 30, 2024 |
| 18797635 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ORIFICE OF A TESTING DEVICE FOR PERFORMING A LEAKAGE TEST | FARINA, MICHAEL VINCENT | — | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Aug 08, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial