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 • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Animal Control Technologies (Australia) Pty Ltd. is currently addressing 1 pending office action within the Chemistry & Materials technology area. The portfolio's active prosecution is limited to 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit, reflecting a streamlined examination process. This narrow focus indicates that the company's current innovations are being evaluated within a single specialized technical group at the patent office, rather than being spread across multiple departments.
BECKER, DREW E is the busiest examiner for the company, managing the 1 pending office action. Since there is only 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit, the entirety of the company's current pending matters is consolidated under a single point of review. This level of concentration allows the applicant to tailor their legal arguments to the specific tendencies of this individual examiner. To advance the 1 pending office action, practitioners should prioritize understanding the examiner's past decisions and the specific standards of the 1 distinct art unit involved, as these will be the primary drivers of the prosecution outcome.
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) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BECKER, DREW E | 1 | 49.0% | +0.2% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18572622 | IRRADIATION OF GRAIN OR SEEDS | BECKER, DREW E | 56d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1792 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18572622 | IRRADIATION OF GRAIN OR SEEDS | BECKER, DREW E | 1792 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 56d | Pending | Dec 20, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial