Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
4 pending office actions • 4 art units • 4 examiners • 0 of 4 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 9 patents granted in the last 365 days
Belhaven Biopharma Inc. currently has 4 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These 4 actions are being reviewed by 4 distinct examiners across 4 distinct art units. This distribution between 4 pending actions, 4 distinct examiners, and 4 distinct art units suggests that each application is being treated as a distinct technical matter by the patent office.
The busiest examiner for the company is GRAY, PHILLIP A, who is responsible for 1 pending action. Because there are 4 distinct examiners and 4 distinct art units for only 4 pending office actions, there is no concentration of workload. Practitioners must develop specific strategies for each of the 4 pending office actions to address the unique requirements of each distinct art unit and examiner involved. The lack of overlap among the 4 distinct examiners and 4 distinct art units means that the company cannot rely on a single unified strategy. Instead, each of the 4 pending office actions must be prosecuted based on its own technical merits and the specific feedback from the assigned examiner.
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 |
|---|---|
| §102 only | 1 (25%) |
| Double-patenting only | 1 (25%) |
| Double-patenting + other | 2 (50%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GRAY, PHILLIP A | 1 | 74.4% | +10.5% |
| WHEELER, THURMAN MICHAEL | 1 | 45.8% | +23.5% |
| LEE, SIN J | 1 | 68.8% | +25.1% |
| MERCIER, MELISSA S | 1 | 72.1% | +5.8% |
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 3 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19554182 | COMPOSITIONS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR INTRANASAL DELIVERY OF DRY POWDER EPINEPHRINE | GRAY, PHILLIP A | — |
| 19243303 | COMPOSITIONS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR INTRANASAL DELIVERY OF DRY POWDER EPINEPHRINE | WHEELER, THURMAN MICHAEL | — |
| 19242213 | COMPOSITIONS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR INTRANASAL DELIVERY OF DRY POWDER EPINEPHRINE | LEE, SIN J | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3783 | 1 |
| 1619 | 1 |
| 1613 | 1 |
| 3785 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19554182 | COMPOSITIONS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR INTRANASAL DELIVERY OF DRY POWDER EPINEPHRINE | GRAY, PHILLIP A | 3783 | §102 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Mar 02, 2026 |
| 19243303 | COMPOSITIONS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR INTRANASAL DELIVERY OF DRY POWDER EPINEPHRINE | WHEELER, THURMAN MICHAEL | 1619 | §103§112DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 19, 2025 |
| 19242213 | COMPOSITIONS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR INTRANASAL DELIVERY OF DRY POWDER EPINEPHRINE | LEE, SIN J | 1613 | §103DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 18, 2025 |
| 18514634 | DRY POWDER FORMULATIONS OF EPINEPHRINE AND ASSOCIATED METHODS | MERCIER, MELISSA S | 3785 | DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Nov 20, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial