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
Dyemansion GmbH is currently managing 2 pending office actions within the Chemistry & Materials technology area. This indicates a focused effort to advance its intellectual property through the patent office. The company is actively engaged in the prosecution process to secure its chemical and material science innovations.
The portfolio is distributed across 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. This structure suggests that the company's filings cover multiple technical niches that fall under different examination departments. Having 2 distinct examiners requires the company to adapt its prosecution strategy to two different sets of examiner expectations and departmental guidelines.
KHARE, ATUL P is identified as the busiest examiner for this portfolio. This examiner is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending office action. Since there are 2 pending office actions in total, KHARE, ATUL P handles a portion of the company's current workload. The company's success in the Chemistry & Materials area depends on successfully navigating the requirements of both KHARE, ATUL P and the other examiner assigned to the 2 distinct art units.
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 |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (100%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHARE, ATUL P | 1 | 54.8% | +72.4% |
| POON, DANA LEE | 1 | 55.4% | +41.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18274588 | PLASTIC BLASTING MEDIUM AND USE OF A PLASTIC BLASTING MEDIUM | KHARE, ATUL P | 56d |
| 18042784 | Blast Machine and Method for Operating a Blast Machine | POON, DANA LEE | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18274588 | PLASTIC BLASTING MEDIUM AND USE OF A PLASTIC BLASTING MEDIUM | KHARE, ATUL P | 56d |
| 18042784 | Blast Machine and Method for Operating a Blast Machine | POON, DANA LEE | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1742 | 1 |
| 3723 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18274588 | PLASTIC BLASTING MEDIUM AND USE OF A PLASTIC BLASTING MEDIUM | KHARE, ATUL P | 1742 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | 56d | Pending | Jul 27, 2023 |
| 18042784 | Blast Machine and Method for Operating a Blast Machine | POON, DANA LEE | 3723 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Feb 24, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial