Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
8 pending office actions • 6 art units • 8 examiners • 0 of 8 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 11 patents granted in the last 365 days
Intex Marketing Ltd. currently has 7 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These actions are distributed among 7 distinct examiners, creating a situation where each pending case is reviewed by a different person. The portfolio is also spread across 6 distinct art units, which is a high number of units relative to the 7 total pending actions.
LUKE F HALL is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, though they only handle 1 pending office action. This lack of concentration across both the 7 distinct examiners and 6 distinct art units suggests that the company's patent applications cover a wide variety of chemical and material technologies. Practitioners must be prepared for a highly fragmented prosecution process, as there is almost no overlap in the personnel or the specific USPTO divisions reviewing the company's intellectual property. With 7 distinct examiners involved, the company cannot rely on a single relationship to drive its patent strategy.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 3 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date; the rest are excluded from the tile counts.
Every pending office action with a known statutory deadline, placed on a days-until-due axis. Dots left of Today are overdue; the further right, the more runway. Cases that share a deadline window stack vertically. 3 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 only | 2 (25%) |
| §102 only | 1 (12%) |
| Double-patenting + other | 1 (12%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 3 (38%) |
| No statute on record | 1 (12%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HALL, LUKE F | 1 | 49.8% | +63.5% |
| RUMMEL, JULIA L | 1 | 34.8% | +52.4% |
| LABARGE, ALISON N | 1 | 62.8% | +34.5% |
| CORDAY, CAMERON A | 1 | 76.9% | +1.1% |
| GINES, GEORGE SAMUEL | 1 | 69.5% | +40.5% |
| CRANE, LAUREN ASHLEY | 1 | 57.3% | +31.5% |
| BUI, ANH HUYNH NGOC | 1 | — | — |
| BAKER, LORI LYNN | 1 | 78.5% | +6.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19318878 | INTERNAL TENSIONING STRUCTURE USEABLE WITH INFLATABLE DEVICES | RUMMEL, JULIA L | 70d |
| 19318988 | INTERNAL TENSIONING STRUCTURE USEABLE WITH INFLATABLE DEVICES | HALL, LUKE F | — |
| 19127822 | INFLATABLE BODY STRUCTURE | LABARGE, ALISON N | — |
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 5 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18723933 | MULTI-CHAMBER INFLATABLE PRODUCT WITH AN INTERNAL PRESSURE REGULATING STRUCTURE | GINES, GEORGE SAMUEL | 29d |
| 19318878 | INTERNAL TENSIONING STRUCTURE USEABLE WITH INFLATABLE DEVICES | RUMMEL, JULIA L | 70d |
| 19318988 | INTERNAL TENSIONING STRUCTURE USEABLE WITH INFLATABLE DEVICES | HALL, LUKE F | — |
| 19127822 | INFLATABLE BODY STRUCTURE | LABARGE, ALISON N | — |
| 18620078 | JOINT FOR ABOVE GROUND POOL FRAME | CRANE, LAUREN ASHLEY | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1784 | 2 |
| 3754 | 2 |
| 3679 | 1 |
| 3745 | 1 |
| 3673 | 1 |
| 1779 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19318988 | INTERNAL TENSIONING STRUCTURE USEABLE WITH INFLATABLE DEVICES | HALL, LUKE F | 1784 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 04, 2025 |
| 19318878 | INTERNAL TENSIONING STRUCTURE USEABLE WITH INFLATABLE DEVICES | RUMMEL, JULIA L | 1784 | §103§112Other | Final Rejection | 70d | Pending | Sep 04, 2025 |
| 19127822 | INFLATABLE BODY STRUCTURE | LABARGE, ALISON N | 3679 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | May 07, 2025 |
| 18874696 | AIR INLET STRUCTURE FOR AN AIR PUMP AND AN AIR PUMP | CORDAY, CAMERON A | 3745 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Dec 13, 2024 |
| 18723933 | MULTI-CHAMBER INFLATABLE PRODUCT WITH AN INTERNAL PRESSURE REGULATING STRUCTURE | GINES, GEORGE SAMUEL | 3673 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 29d | Pending | Jun 25, 2024 |
| 18620078 | JOINT FOR ABOVE GROUND POOL FRAME | CRANE, LAUREN ASHLEY | 3754 | §103DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Mar 28, 2024 |
| 18292994 | FILTER DEVICES AND CONTAMINATION PROMPT STRUCTURES | BUI, ANH HUYNH NGOC | 1779 | §102 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jan 29, 2024 |
| 17848442 | INFLATABLE SPA | BAKER, LORI LYNN | 3754 | Other | Non-Final OA | 1065d overdue | Pending | Jun 24, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial