Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026

Arburg GmbH + Co. Kg

Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems

3 pending office actions • 3 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 3 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 3 patents granted in the last 365 days

Analysis

Arburg GmbH + Co. Kg is currently managing 3 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These 3 pending office actions are distributed across 3 distinct art units, indicating that each application is being reviewed by a different specialized group within the patent office. The involvement of multiple art units for the pending actions suggests a diverse range of chemical or material innovations that do not overlap in their administrative classification. For a practitioner, this requires a versatile approach to address the specific nuances of each distinct art unit.

The prosecution of these 3 pending office actions involves 3 distinct examiners. This creates a one-to-one ratio where each examiner is responsible for exactly 1 pending office action. HUSON, MONICA ANNE is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, currently overseeing 1 pending office action. With 3 distinct examiners involved, the company faces three different sets of examiner preferences and backgrounds. The distribution of the workload ensures that no single examiner has a dominant influence over the entire pending portfolio.

For practitioners, the 3 pending office actions across the distinct art units and examiners mean that there is no common ground between the current cases. HUSON, MONICA ANNE and the other examiners each manage a pending office action, requiring a unique approach for every file. The Chemistry & Materials focus provides the only unifying theme for these actions, as the administrative and examiner assignments are entirely distinct. Success in this environment depends on the ability to navigate different examiner styles while maintaining technical consistency across the 3 distinct art units.

Written from this page's own data; every figure is computed from USPTO records and verified before publication.

Portfolio Summary

3
Total Pending OAs
1
Non-Final OAs
2
Final Rejections
0
Advisory / Quayle

Response Deadline Pressure

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.

0
Overdue
0
Due this week
1
Due this month
0
Due in next 60 days
0
Due later

Case Difficulty Mix

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.

1
Hard (33%)
2
Medium (67%)
0
Easy (0%)
0
Unknown (0%)

Rejection Statute Mix

BucketCases
§103 only1 (33%)
§102 only1 (33%)
Multi-statute (no §101)1 (33%)

Industry Mix

How the docket's pending cases split across USPTO tech-center bands.

2
Life Sciences
67% of docket
0
Information Tech
0% of docket
0
Communications
0% of docket
0
Semiconductors
0% of docket
1
Mechanical / Eng
33% of docket
0
Business / Other
0% of docket

Time-on-OA Estimate

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.

30 h
Manual time on pending OAs
6 h
Time saved (low, 20%)
10 h
Time saved (mid, 35%)
0.3 wks
FTE-weeks freed (mid)

Top Examiners on this docket

ExaminerApps on this docketAllow rateInterview lift
HUSON, MONICA ANNE 1 79.6% +13.5%
CHIDIAC, NICHOLAS J 1 54.4% +34.6%
STIEBRITZ, NOAH WILLIAM 1 66.7% -4.0%

Hard Cases (1)

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 #TitleExaminerDue in
18706972 METHOD FOR PRODUCING AT LEAST ONE COMPONENT CHIDIAC, NICHOLAS J —

Interview Candidates (2)

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 #TitleExaminerDue in
18702350 METHOD FOR ROTATING A ROTATABLE PART HUSON, MONICA ANNE 9d
18706972 METHOD FOR PRODUCING AT LEAST ONE COMPONENT CHIDIAC, NICHOLAS J —

Top Art Units

Art UnitApps
1742 1
1744 1
3658 1

Pending Office Actions

App #TitleExaminerArt UnitStatutesStatusDue inAIFiled
18702350 METHOD FOR ROTATING A ROTATABLE PART HUSON, MONICA ANNE 1742 §102 Final Rejection 9d Pending Nov 11, 2024
18706972 METHOD FOR PRODUCING AT LEAST ONE COMPONENT CHIDIAC, NICHOLAS J 1744 §103§112 Non-Final OA — Pending May 02, 2024
18688063 METHOD, MACHINE CONTROL AND COMPUTER-PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR DETERMINING A PATH FOR AUTONAVIGATION STIEBRITZ, NOAH WILLIAM 3658 §103 Final Rejection — Pending Feb 29, 2024

Managing Arburg GmbH + Co. Kg's Patent Portfolio?

IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.

Start Free Trial

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month