Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 3 patents granted in the last 365 days
Cortronik GmbH has 2 pending office actions within the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These actions are split between 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units, showing no concentration of workload. TUROCY, DAVID P is the busiest examiner for the company, holding 1 pending office action.
The presence of 2 distinct art units within the Chemistry & Materials field indicates that the company's current filings are technically diverse. With 2 pending office actions and 2 distinct examiners, the company must manage two separate prosecution tracks. TUROCY, DAVID P handles 1 of these actions, representing half of the current pending workload.
Practitioners should observe that the workload is evenly distributed across the 2 distinct examiners. There is no central examiner to influence the overall portfolio strategy. The 2 distinct art units suggest that the technical focus of the current pending matters is distinct enough to require different classification areas. This lack of concentration means that prosecution strategies must be tailored to the specific tendencies of each individual examiner.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TUROCY, DAVID P | 1 | 46.9% | +35.5% |
| PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | 1 | 55.2% | +35.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17780144 | SWELLABLE POLYMER HYBRID FIBRES FOR A SLEEVE OF AN INTRALUMINAL ENDOPROSTHESIS | PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18867128 | PROCESS FOR APPLYING A POLYMER COATING TO A PROTEIN-CONTAINING BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL | TUROCY, DAVID P | 46d |
| 17780144 | SWELLABLE POLYMER HYBRID FIBRES FOR A SLEEVE OF AN INTRALUMINAL ENDOPROSTHESIS | PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1718 | 1 |
| 3799 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18867128 | PROCESS FOR APPLYING A POLYMER COATING TO A PROTEIN-CONTAINING BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL | TUROCY, DAVID P | 1718 | §103 | Final Rejection | 46d | Pending | Nov 19, 2024 |
| 17780144 | SWELLABLE POLYMER HYBRID FIBRES FOR A SLEEVE OF AN INTRALUMINAL ENDOPROSTHESIS | PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | 3799 | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | May 26, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial