Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Computing & Software
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 5 patents granted in the last 365 days
Five Al Limited manages 2 pending office actions in the Computing & Software technology area. These actions are assigned to 2 distinct examiners. Both examiners are located within the same 1 distinct art unit, suggesting a tight technical focus for the pending applications despite the involvement of multiple examiners.
The busiest examiner, MIKOWSKI, JUSTIN C, is responsible for 1 pending office action. Since there are 2 pending office actions and 2 distinct examiners, each examiner is handling 1 action. The use of 1 distinct art unit for both pending actions means that while the examiners may differ, the underlying regulatory and technical standards remain consistent across the portfolio.
This structure allows the applicant to apply a unified technical strategy while still needing to account for the individual preferences of 2 distinct examiners. The concentration in 1 distinct art unit simplifies the legal research required, as the team only needs to master the specific precedents of one specialized group. However, the presence of 2 distinct examiners still requires a tailored approach for each pending office action.
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 |
|---|---|
| §101 only | 1 (50%) |
| §103 only | 1 (50%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIKOWSKI, JUSTIN C | 1 | 74.0% | +33.7% |
| BOURZIK, BRAHIM | 1 | 63.8% | +44.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18287919 | PERFORMANCE TESTING FOR MOBILE ROBOT TRAJECTORY PLANNERS | MIKOWSKI, JUSTIN C | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18279773 | SIMULATION BASED TESTING FOR TRAJECTORY PLANNERS | BOURZIK, BRAHIM | 35d overdue |
| 18287919 | PERFORMANCE TESTING FOR MOBILE ROBOT TRAJECTORY PLANNERS | MIKOWSKI, JUSTIN C | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 2191 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18287919 | PERFORMANCE TESTING FOR MOBILE ROBOT TRAJECTORY PLANNERS | MIKOWSKI, JUSTIN C | — | §101 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Oct 23, 2023 |
| 18279773 | SIMULATION BASED TESTING FOR TRAJECTORY PLANNERS | BOURZIK, BRAHIM | 2191 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 35d overdue | Pending | Aug 31, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial