Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
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
Ctl Medical Corporation manages a company patent portfolio in the Medical Devices and Mechanical Engineering technology area. The portfolio currently has 2 pending office actions. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners, which suggests that each case is receiving an independent evaluation.
The prosecution activity is split between 2 distinct art units. This indicates that the 2 pending office actions cover different technical aspects or sub-specialties within the medical device field. The busiest examiner, MATTHEWS, TESSA M, is responsible for 1 pending office action. This shows that the workload is evenly divided, as the busiest examiner pending count is 1.
For a practitioner, the presence of 2 distinct art units and 2 distinct examiners means that there is no central point of concentration for the current prosecution. Each of the 2 pending office actions must be managed according to the specific standards of its respective art unit and examiner. Coordination is necessary to ensure that the 2 pending office actions do not result in conflicting claim interpretations.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MATTHEWS, TESSA M | 1 | 83.0% | +24.3% |
| SIPP, AMY R. | 1 | 71.1% | +25.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18611512 | BONE GROWTH ENHANCEMENT CONTAINMENT DEVICE | MATTHEWS, TESSA M | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17398984 | HYBRID SPINAL CAGES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS | SIPP, AMY R. | 141d 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17398984 | HYBRID SPINAL CAGES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS | SIPP, AMY R. | 141d overdue |
| 18611512 | BONE GROWTH ENHANCEMENT CONTAINMENT DEVICE | MATTHEWS, TESSA M | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3773 | 1 |
| 3775 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18611512 | BONE GROWTH ENHANCEMENT CONTAINMENT DEVICE | MATTHEWS, TESSA M | 3773 | §103 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Mar 20, 2024 |
| 17398984 | HYBRID SPINAL CAGES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS | SIPP, AMY R. | 3775 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 141d overdue | Pending | Aug 10, 2021 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial