Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
3 pending office actions • 2 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 3 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
I T S GmbH currently has 3 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These 3 actions are handled by 3 distinct examiners, resulting in a 1 to 1 ratio where each active case is reviewed by a different individual. This distribution requires the company to adapt its prosecution tactics to 3 different examiner styles. HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA is the busiest examiner, currently managing 1 pending action.
The 3 pending office actions are spread across 2 distinct art units, indicating that the company's medical device technology is being reviewed by 2 different specialized groups at the USPTO. With 3 distinct examiners and 2 art units, the prosecution landscape is moderately diverse for a small portfolio. Because HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA and the other examiners each handle only 1 pending action, no single examiner has a disproportionate influence on the portfolio's outcomes. Practitioners must navigate the specific standards of 2 art units while addressing the individual feedback of 3 different examiners to advance these 3 pending office actions. Success depends on managing these 3 independent negotiations effectively.
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 + other | 1 (33%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (67%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA | 1 | 78.2% | +11.4% |
| SIPP, AMY R. | 1 | 71.1% | +25.6% |
| LANE, HOLLY JOANNA | 1 | 80.5% | +16.3% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 3 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19109011 | POSITIONING DEVICE | SIPP, AMY R. | 43d |
| 18834343 | DEVICE FOR TREATING A FRACTURE | HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA | — |
| 18857863 | DEVICE FOR TREATING A FRACTURE | LANE, HOLLY JOANNA | — |
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 3 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19109011 | POSITIONING DEVICE | SIPP, AMY R. | 43d |
| 18834343 | DEVICE FOR TREATING A FRACTURE | HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA | — |
| 18857863 | DEVICE FOR TREATING A FRACTURE | LANE, HOLLY JOANNA | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3775 | 1 |
| 3773 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18834343 | DEVICE FOR TREATING A FRACTURE | HAMMOND, ELLEN CHRISTINA | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jul 23, 2025 |
| 19109011 | POSITIONING DEVICE | SIPP, AMY R. | 3775 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 43d | Pending | Mar 05, 2025 |
| 18857863 | DEVICE FOR TREATING A FRACTURE | LANE, HOLLY JOANNA | 3773 | §101§102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Oct 18, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial