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
Eyedetec Medical Inc. is currently navigating 2 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are being reviewed by 2 distinct examiners, yet they are both situated within 1 distinct art unit. This indicates that while the technical focus is narrow enough to stay within one unit, multiple perspectives from different examiners are involved in the review process. This can lead to different prosecution outcomes even for closely related technologies within the same art unit.
The busiest examiner identified is PINDERSKI, JACQUELINE M, who is responsible for 1 pending office action. Given that there are 2 pending office actions across 2 distinct examiners, the workload is split evenly. This arrangement means each examiner manages exactly 1 pending action for the company. Practitioners should be prepared to handle two different examiner styles within the same 1 distinct art unit. This structure provides the company with a diversified look at its technology from two different individuals while maintaining the administrative simplicity of dealing with only one art unit's specific guidelines and management.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PINDERSKI, JACQUELINE M | 1 | 26.9% | +45.3% |
| GREIG, THOMAS W | 1 | 74.7% | +23.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18522857 | OPHTHALMIC MEDICAL DEVICE FOR TREATMENT OF MEIBOMIAN GLAND DYSFUNCTION AND EVAPORATIVE DRY EYE DISEASE UTILIZING SHEAR THINNING TECHNOLOGY | PINDERSKI, JACQUELINE M | 100d overdue |
| 18561537 | THERAPEUTIC SPECTACLES FOR RELIEVING DRY EYES | GREIG, THOMAS W | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18522857 | OPHTHALMIC MEDICAL DEVICE FOR TREATMENT OF MEIBOMIAN GLAND DYSFUNCTION AND EVAPORATIVE DRY EYE DISEASE UTILIZING SHEAR THINNING TECHNOLOGY | PINDERSKI, JACQUELINE M | 100d overdue |
| 18561537 | THERAPEUTIC SPECTACLES FOR RELIEVING DRY EYES | GREIG, THOMAS W | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3785 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18522857 | OPHTHALMIC MEDICAL DEVICE FOR TREATMENT OF MEIBOMIAN GLAND DYSFUNCTION AND EVAPORATIVE DRY EYE DISEASE UTILIZING SHEAR THINNING TECHNOLOGY | PINDERSKI, JACQUELINE M | 3785 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | 100d overdue | Pending | Nov 29, 2023 |
| 18561537 | THERAPEUTIC SPECTACLES FOR RELIEVING DRY EYES | GREIG, THOMAS W | 3785 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Nov 16, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial