Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Epic Neuro Inc. is currently navigating 2 pending office actions within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners, though they are both situated within 1 distinct art unit. This concentration within the art unit suggests that while different individuals are reviewing the applications, the technical focus remains consistent across the company's pending matters. Practitioners can benefit from this consistency by applying successful arguments between the applications.
ROBLES, EILEEN is identified as the busiest examiner for the company, currently managing 1 pending office action. This represents a portion of the total pending office actions. The involvement of multiple examiners within the art unit allows the company to compare examiner behaviors while adhering to the specific guidelines of the technical group. Practitioners should monitor the progress of both pending actions to identify any common themes or challenges within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering area. This dual-examiner approach within a single art unit provides an opportunity to gauge the unit's overall stance on the company's technology.
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 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROBLES, EILEEN | 1 | — | — |
| ZAMORY, JUSTIN L | 1 | 72.9% | +17.4% |
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 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18329279 | BRAIN STIMULATION DEVICE WITH TARGETED INJECTABLE DRUG DELIVERY | ZAMORY, JUSTIN L | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3783 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18911698 | BRAIN STIMULATION USING SUBCRANIAL ELECTRODE AND SUBCUTANEOUS ELECTRODE | ROBLES, EILEEN | — | §103Other | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Oct 10, 2024 |
| 18329279 | BRAIN STIMULATION DEVICE WITH TARGETED INJECTABLE DRUG DELIVERY | ZAMORY, JUSTIN L | 3783 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 05, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial