Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
4 pending office actions • 1 art units • 4 examiners • 0 of 4 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Epizyme Inc. currently faces 4 pending office actions within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. Interestingly, while there are 4 distinct examiners involved in these cases, they are all concentrated within 1 distinct art unit. This suggests a high degree of technical consistency in the company's current filings, even as the workload is distributed across several different individuals. The concentration in this specific unit may allow for a more unified strategy regarding art-unit-specific precedents.
The busiest examiner, GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V, is assigned 1 busiest examiner pending action. This indicates that the active office actions are evenly distributed, as no single examiner holds more than a single case. For the practitioner, this means that while the 1 distinct art unit provides a consistent technical framework, they must manage the unique styles and requirements of 4 distinct examiners simultaneously. This balance of centralized technical review and decentralized examiner interaction is a key feature of the current portfolio.
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 (25%) |
| §112 only | 1 (25%) |
| Double-patenting only | 1 (25%) |
| Double-patenting + other | 1 (25%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V | 1 | 63.2% | +34.0% |
| WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E | 1 | 75.2% | +9.8% |
| DEKARSKE, MADELINE MCGUIRE | 1 | 0.0% | +0.0% |
| BASQUILL, SEAN M | 1 | 38.8% | +21.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18706071 | CRYSTALLINE FORMS OF N-((1R,3S)-3-(4-ACETYLPIPERAZIN-1-YL)CYCLOHEXYL)-4-FLUORO-7-METHYL-1H-INDOLE-2-CARBOXAMIDE | DEKARSKE, MADELINE MCGUIRE | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18900199 | ARYL-OR HETEROARYL-SUBSTITUTED BENZENE COMPOUNDS | GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V | — |
| 18471734 | CRYSTALLINE COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME | BASQUILL, SEAN M | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1614 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18900199 | ARYL-OR HETEROARYL-SUBSTITUTED BENZENE COMPOUNDS | GEMBEH, SHIRLEY V | — | DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 27, 2024 |
| 18895046 | METHOD FOR TREATING CANCER | WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E | — | §112Other | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 24, 2024 |
| 18706071 | CRYSTALLINE FORMS OF N-((1R,3S)-3-(4-ACETYLPIPERAZIN-1-YL)CYCLOHEXYL)-4-FLUORO-7-METHYL-1H-INDOLE-2-CARBOXAMIDE | DEKARSKE, MADELINE MCGUIRE | — | §103DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 30, 2024 |
| 18471734 | CRYSTALLINE COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME | BASQUILL, SEAN M | 1614 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 21, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial