Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Computing & Software
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 3 patents granted in the last 365 days
Gea Tuchenhagen GmbH currently manages 1 pending office action within the Computing & Software technology area. This matter is assigned to 1 distinct examiner working in 1 distinct art unit. The concentration of the portfolio suggests a highly focused prosecution effort at this stage, where the company is likely prioritizing a specific technical advancement.
HOWARD CORTES is the busiest examiner for the company, handling 1 pending office action. This represents the entirety of the company's current workload before the USPTO. Practitioners should note that the prosecution strategy is currently centralized under 1 distinct examiner, which may lead to consistent feedback but limits exposure to different examination styles.
The outcome of this matter will be the primary indicator of the company's success in the Computing & Software space for the immediate future. Because the data shows only 1 distinct art unit, the company's legal team can focus their research on the specific precedents and internal tendencies of that unit. This streamlined approach reduces the complexity of managing multiple examiner timelines. The presence of the busiest examiner, HOWARD CORTES, suggests a stable interaction with the patent office.
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) | 1 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CORTES, HOWARD | 1 | 78.5% | +14.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18557783 | Valve Control Device | CORTES, HOWARD | 46d overdue |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18557783 | Valve Control Device | CORTES, HOWARD | 46d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 2118 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18557783 | Valve Control Device | CORTES, HOWARD | 2118 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 46d overdue | Pending | Oct 27, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial