Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Innovation Fabrication Commercialisation Infaco currently has 1 pending office action within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. This single action is being reviewed by 1 distinct examiner, SULLIVAN, DEBRA M, who is also identified as the busiest examiner for the portfolio. The prosecution is localized within a distinct art unit, suggesting a very specific technical focus for the company's current patent efforts.
With the pending office action assigned to SULLIVAN, DEBRA M, the administrative burden on the portfolio is minimal. The fact that the busiest examiner has a pending action reflects the small scale of the current active prosecution. Practitioners can dedicate their full attention to this single interaction within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering sector. This concentration in the art unit allows for a highly targeted legal strategy that does not need to account for varying examiner behaviors across different departments.
The alignment of the examiner and the art unit for the pending office action ensures that the prosecution path is straightforward. There are no competing priorities or conflicting examiner styles to navigate within the portfolio at this time. This environment provides a clear opportunity to resolve the pending matter with a focused approach to the specific requirements of the assigned examiner, SULLIVAN, DEBRA M.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SULLIVAN, DEBRA M | 1 | 78.4% | +17.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18832212 | PORTABLE ELECTRIC TYING MACHINE FOR BINDING PLANTS | SULLIVAN, DEBRA M | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18832212 | PORTABLE ELECTRIC TYING MACHINE FOR BINDING PLANTS | SULLIVAN, DEBRA M | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3725 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18832212 | PORTABLE ELECTRIC TYING MACHINE FOR BINDING PLANTS | SULLIVAN, DEBRA M | 3725 | §102§103§112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Jul 23, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial