Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Btl Medical Development A S holds 2 pending office actions within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These 2 pending office actions are assigned to 2 distinct examiners. Both examiners work within 1 distinct art unit, suggesting that the active applications are being evaluated under the same technical guidelines and supervisory structure. This concentration within 1 distinct art unit simplifies the management of the portfolio's technical narrative.
MICHAEL F PEFFLEY is identified as the busiest examiner, currently overseeing 1 pending office action. The workload is divided, with each of the 2 distinct examiners handling 1 of the pending matters. This arrangement allows the applicant to engage with 1 distinct art unit while receiving feedback from two different examiners. Practitioners should be mindful of potential differences in examiner style while benefiting from the consistent technical focus of the shared unit.
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 |
|---|---|
| Double-patenting only | 1 (50%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 1 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F | 1 | 77.8% | +13.0% |
| ZINK, AMANDA L | 1 | 85.2% | +3.1% |
Cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate of 80%+ where the difficulty is Easy or Medium. The top 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18512161 | PULSED FIELD ABLATION DEVICE AND METHOD | ZINK, AMANDA L | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18820570 | PULSED FIELD ABLATION DEVICE AND METHOD | PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18820570 | PULSED FIELD ABLATION DEVICE AND METHOD | PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3794 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18820570 | PULSED FIELD ABLATION DEVICE AND METHOD | PEFFLEY, MICHAEL F | — | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Aug 30, 2024 |
| 18512161 | PULSED FIELD ABLATION DEVICE AND METHOD | ZINK, AMANDA L | 3794 | DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Nov 17, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial