Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Connecticut Children'S Medical Center manages a company patent portfolio within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. The portfolio currently has 2 pending office actions distributed across 2 distinct examiners. This distribution indicates that each pending matter is being reviewed by a different individual, requiring separate prosecution strategies for each case.
The 2 distinct art units involved suggest that the biotechnology and pharmaceutical research being patented spans different specialized classifications. BROWE, DAVID is identified as the busiest examiner, though he is only responsible for 1 pending office action. This means the workload is evenly split, as the total pending office actions are shared between the 2 distinct examiners.
Practitioners working on this portfolio must navigate the specific requirements of different art units. With a pending office action assigned to BROWE, DAVID and another to a different examiner, the center must maintain consistency across its Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals filings. The presence of distinct examiners ensures that the portfolio's progress is not entirely dependent on a single person's interpretation of patent law.
The busiest examiner pending count of 1 indicates that no single examiner is overwhelmed by the center's applications. Reviewing the history of both examiners within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals space can help anticipate potential hurdles. Monitoring the status of both pending office actions is vital for timely adjustments to the broader intellectual property strategy.
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 |
|---|---|
| §101 + other | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BROWE, DAVID | 1 | 26.4% | +27.3% |
| BRANDT, DAVID NELSON | 1 | 70.1% | +49.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18692742 | SILK FIBROIN DERIVED BRUSH-LIKE POLYMERS | BROWE, DAVID | — |
| 18474544 | NASOGASTRIC DEVICE AND METHOD | BRANDT, DAVID NELSON | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18692742 | SILK FIBROIN DERIVED BRUSH-LIKE POLYMERS | BROWE, DAVID | — |
| 18474544 | NASOGASTRIC DEVICE AND METHOD | BRANDT, DAVID NELSON | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1617 | 1 |
| 3783 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18692742 | SILK FIBROIN DERIVED BRUSH-LIKE POLYMERS | BROWE, DAVID | 1617 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Mar 15, 2024 |
| 18474544 | NASOGASTRIC DEVICE AND METHOD | BRANDT, DAVID NELSON | 3783 | §101§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 26, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial