Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 2 patents granted in the last 365 days
Cenovus Energy Inc. has 2 pending office actions in the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area. These actions are located in 2 distinct art units. This means that each of the company's current pending matters is being evaluated by a different technical group within the patent office.
There are 2 distinct examiners assigned to these actions. RUNYAN, SILVANA C is the busiest examiner with 1 pending action. Each action is being handled by a different examiner in a different art unit, resulting in a ratio of 1 examiner per action. This distribution ensures that no single examiner or art unit has a dominant influence over the company's current pending workload.
With 2 pending actions and 2 examiners in 2 art units, the portfolio is small but highly distributed. For a practitioner, this means there is no overlap to leverage between the two cases. Each action must be prosecuted as an entirely independent matter, as both the personnel and the technical classifications are distinct for each of the 2 pending office actions.
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 |
|---|---|
| §112 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| RUNYAN, SILVANA C | 1 | 82.4% | +16.9% |
| YAO, THEODORE N | 1 | 66.9% | +39.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19273006 | METHODS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE OR HYDROGEN SULFIDE SEQUESTRATION IN A SUBTERRANEAN RESERVOIR USING SORBENT PARTICLES | RUNYAN, SILVANA C | 23d 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19273006 | METHODS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE OR HYDROGEN SULFIDE SEQUESTRATION IN A SUBTERRANEAN RESERVOIR USING SORBENT PARTICLES | RUNYAN, SILVANA C | 23d overdue |
| 19207245 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING INJECTOR BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE IN A HYDROCARBON RECOVERY OPERATION USING LINER-DEPLOYED OUTFLOW CONTROL DEVICES | YAO, THEODORE N | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3674 | 1 |
| 3676 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19273006 | METHODS FOR CARBON DIOXIDE OR HYDROGEN SULFIDE SEQUESTRATION IN A SUBTERRANEAN RESERVOIR USING SORBENT PARTICLES | RUNYAN, SILVANA C | 3674 | §102§103 | Final Rejection | 23d overdue | Pending | Jul 17, 2025 |
| 19207245 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING INJECTOR BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE IN A HYDROCARBON RECOVERY OPERATION USING LINER-DEPLOYED OUTFLOW CONTROL DEVICES | YAO, THEODORE N | 3676 | §112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | May 13, 2025 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial