Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Andritz AB has 1 pending office action in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. This action is being reviewed by 1 distinct examiner within 1 distinct art unit. This represents a very focused prosecution effort, typical for specialized firms targeting a specific chemical or material process. The concentration in 1 distinct art unit indicates that the company's current patent activity is technically specialized within the chemistry sector.
The busiest examiner, CALANDRA, ANTHONY J, is responsible for the 1 pending office action. Because there is only 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit involved, the company's current USPTO interaction is centralized. The immediate development of the company's patent portfolio in the chemistry sector is dependent on the resolution of this 1 pending office action. Practitioners should focus on the specific examiner's history and the standards of the 1 distinct art unit to navigate the prosecution. The 1 pending office action represents the company's primary point of contact with the patent office for its current chemistry filings. The outcome in this 1 distinct art unit will set the tone for future filings.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 only | 1 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CALANDRA, ANTHONY J | 1 | 62.8% | +18.7% |
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 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18698077 | A METHOD FOR CHEMICAL PULP PRODUCTION IN A MULTI-STAGE PROCESS | CALANDRA, ANTHONY J | 17d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1748 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18698077 | A METHOD FOR CHEMICAL PULP PRODUCTION IN A MULTI-STAGE PROCESS | CALANDRA, ANTHONY J | 1748 | §103 | Final Rejection | 17d overdue | Pending | Apr 03, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial