Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Invibio Device Component Manufacturing Limited is managing 2 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These actions are distributed between 2 distinct examiners, meaning that each matter is being reviewed by a different individual. The portfolio is active across 2 distinct art units, indicating that every active matter is in a different technical unit.
Catherine A. Simone is the busiest examiner for the company, currently overseeing 1 pending office action. The presence of 2 distinct art units for only 2 pending office actions means that there is no overlap in examiners or art units for the current workload. This requires a highly tailored approach for each of the 2 distinct examiners and art units involved in the Chemistry & Materials area.
For practitioners, the 2 pending office actions represent 2 completely separate prosecution tracks. The strategy for one action will be entirely independent of the other due to the 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. Success in this portfolio requires managing these two separate interactions without the benefit of shared examiner or art unit perspectives across the pending 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 |
|---|---|
| §102 only | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SIMONE, CATHERINE A | 1 | 73.3% | +22.8% |
| DERUSSO, JOHN J | 1 | 80.4% | +14.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18728654 | A MOULD TOOL | DERUSSO, JOHN J | 19d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18728654 | A MOULD TOOL | DERUSSO, JOHN J | 19d |
| 18728665 | A COMPRESSION MOULDED BODY | SIMONE, CATHERINE A | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1781 | 1 |
| 1744 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18728665 | A COMPRESSION MOULDED BODY | SIMONE, CATHERINE A | 1781 | §102 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jul 12, 2024 |
| 18728654 | A MOULD TOOL | DERUSSO, JOHN J | 1744 | §102§103 | Final Rejection | 19d | Pending | Jul 12, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial