Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Semiconductors, Circuits & Optics
3 pending office actions • 3 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 3 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 4 patents granted in the last 365 days
Dragonfly Energy Corp. has 3 pending office actions within the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These actions are distributed across 3 distinct examiners and 3 distinct art units, showing that each pending matter is being handled by a different individual in a different administrative group. This distribution suggests that the company's chemistry-related applications cover a variety of technical sub-sectors, requiring a range of expertise from the prosecution team to address the 3 pending office actions effectively.
The busiest examiner for this portfolio is VORTMAN, ANATOLY, who is assigned 1 busiest examiner pending office action. This examiner's workload is part of the total 3 pending office actions. Because the 3 pending office actions are spread across 3 distinct art units, the company must navigate 3 sets of examiner expectations and art unit guidelines simultaneously. This decentralized prosecution environment means that the strategy for each of the 3 distinct examiners must be tailored to their specific technical interpretations and procedural preferences.
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 |
|---|---|
| Double-patenting + other | 1 (33%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (67%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| VORTMAN, ANATOLY | 1 | 70.0% | +13.8% |
| JELSMA, JONATHAN G | 1 | 69.8% | +14.9% |
| RUTISER, CLAIRE A | 1 | 41.8% | +21.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18340188 | THERMAL FUSE | VORTMAN, ANATOLY | — |
| 17312187 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MONITORING BATTERY SYSTEMS | RUTISER, CLAIRE A | — |
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 3 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18161867 | PREPARATION AND POWDER FILM DEPOSITION OF PRE-COATED POWDERS | JELSMA, JONATHAN G | 17d overdue |
| 18340188 | THERMAL FUSE | VORTMAN, ANATOLY | — |
| 17312187 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MONITORING BATTERY SYSTEMS | RUTISER, CLAIRE A | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 2835 | 1 |
| 1722 | 1 |
| 1751 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18340188 | THERMAL FUSE | VORTMAN, ANATOLY | 2835 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Jun 23, 2023 |
| 18161867 | PREPARATION AND POWDER FILM DEPOSITION OF PRE-COATED POWDERS | JELSMA, JONATHAN G | 1722 | §103DP | Non-Final OA | 17d overdue | Pending | Jan 30, 2023 |
| 17312187 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MONITORING BATTERY SYSTEMS | RUTISER, CLAIRE A | 1751 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 09, 2021 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial