Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
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 • 5 patents granted in the last 365 days
Intervene Inc. currently has 2 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. Both actions are assigned to 1 distinct art unit, showing a concentrated technical focus for the portfolio. The prosecution involves 2 distinct examiners, so each pending action is handled by a different individual. This distribution requires the company to manage 2 separate interactions with patent office personnel during the prosecution process.
The busiest examiner is TANNER, JOCELIN C, who is responsible for 1 pending office action. This figure matches the workload of the other examiner, as the 2 pending actions are spread one-to-one. Having 2 pending actions in 1 art unit allows the company to focus its legal strategy on a single technical group at the patent office. The involvement of 2 distinct examiners means the company must address 2 different sets of feedback while working within the same art unit. This concentrated activity in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering field simplifies the management of technical arguments across the 2 active matters.
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 |
|---|---|
| Double-patenting + other | 1 (50%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TANNER, JOCELIN C | 1 | 72.2% | +34.8% |
| FARRELL, KATHLEEN PAIGE | 1 | 37.5% | +71.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17661507 | INTRAVASCULAR DEVICES AND METHODS FOR DELIVERY OF FLUIDS AND THERAPEUTIC AGENTS INTO BLOOD VESSEL WALLS AND INTRAVASCULAR STRUCTURES | FARRELL, KATHLEEN PAIGE | 22d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17661507 | INTRAVASCULAR DEVICES AND METHODS FOR DELIVERY OF FLUIDS AND THERAPEUTIC AGENTS INTO BLOOD VESSEL WALLS AND INTRAVASCULAR STRUCTURES | FARRELL, KATHLEEN PAIGE | 22d |
| 19086036 | INTRALUMINAL TISSUE MODIFYING SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED DEVICES AND METHODS | TANNER, JOCELIN C | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3783 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19086036 | INTRALUMINAL TISSUE MODIFYING SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED DEVICES AND METHODS | TANNER, JOCELIN C | — | §102§103§112DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Mar 20, 2025 |
| 17661507 | INTRAVASCULAR DEVICES AND METHODS FOR DELIVERY OF FLUIDS AND THERAPEUTIC AGENTS INTO BLOOD VESSEL WALLS AND INTRAVASCULAR STRUCTURES | FARRELL, KATHLEEN PAIGE | 3783 | §102§103 | Final Rejection | 22d | Pending | Apr 29, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial