Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 4 patents granted in the last 365 days
Aplix maintains a portfolio with 2 pending office actions focused in the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. This distribution shows that each pending matter is being evaluated by a different individual in a different organizational unit of the patent office. The company is currently managing these 2 actions without any overlap in examiner or art unit assignments.
SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J is identified as the busiest examiner for the portfolio, currently overseeing 1 pending office action. This accounts for 1 of the pending actions for the company. Because the 2 pending office actions are split between 2 distinct examiners, no single examiner holds all of the active workload. This requires the company to navigate different examiner styles and the 2 distinct art units simultaneously.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J | 1 | 62.9% | +22.9% |
| ROBITAILLE, JOHN P | 1 | 62.6% | +22.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18862387 | IMPROVED RETENTION DEVICE | SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J | 18d overdue |
| 18334922 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SECURING A SUBSTRATE TO A PLASTIC STRIP, AND FASTENING DEVICE LIKELY TO BE OBTAINED BY SAID METHOD | ROBITAILLE, JOHN P | 18d overdue |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18862387 | IMPROVED RETENTION DEVICE | SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J | 18d overdue |
| 18334922 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SECURING A SUBSTRATE TO A PLASTIC STRIP, AND FASTENING DEVICE LIKELY TO BE OBTAINED BY SAID METHOD | ROBITAILLE, JOHN P | 18d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3677 | 1 |
| 1743 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18862387 | IMPROVED RETENTION DEVICE | SULLIVAN, MATTHEW J | 3677 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 18d overdue | Pending | Nov 01, 2024 |
| 18334922 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SECURING A SUBSTRATE TO A PLASTIC STRIP, AND FASTENING DEVICE LIKELY TO BE OBTAINED BY SAID METHOD | ROBITAILLE, JOHN P | 1743 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | 18d overdue | Pending | Jun 14, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial