Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals • Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
4 pending office actions • 4 art units • 4 examiners • 0 of 4 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
The Japanese Foundation For Cancer Research is managing 4 pending office actions in the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. These actions are distributed among 4 distinct examiners, which means each examiner is currently reviewing one matter for the foundation. This distribution ensures that the workload is spread across multiple individuals, as each of the 4 pending office actions is handled independently.
The 4 pending office actions are located within 4 distinct art units, indicating a high degree of technical variety within the biotechnology field. LAGOY, KYRA RAND is the busiest examiner, with 1 pending office action currently assigned. This one-to-one ratio of actions to art units and examiners suggests that each of the foundation's current matters is being handled in a unique administrative context. Practitioners must be prepared to navigate four different art unit environments while addressing the specific requirements of 4 distinct examiners.
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 | 4 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAGOY, KYRA RAND | 1 | 9.5% | -11.1% |
| MOSS, NATALIE M | 1 | 30.8% | +17.1% |
| HAMA, JOANNE | 1 | 25.7% | +40.0% |
| BEANE, RANDALL L | 1 | 32.8% | +36.8% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 4 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18877477 | CLINICAL TRIAL ASSISTANCE METHOD AND CLINICAL TRIAL ASSISTANCE SYSTEM | LAGOY, KYRA RAND | 73d overdue |
| 18750552 | EVALUATION METHOD OF ANTICANCER DRUG AND SELECTION METHOD OF ANTICANCER DRUG | MOSS, NATALIE M | — |
| 18703972 | METHOD FOR DETECTING KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER, METHOD FOR DETERMINING RENAL PROGNOSIS, DETECTION KIT FOR KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER, AND KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER | HAMA, JOANNE | — |
| 18263947 | APPLICATION OF GILTERITINIB TO VARIOUS MUTANTS | BEANE, RANDALL L | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18750552 | EVALUATION METHOD OF ANTICANCER DRUG AND SELECTION METHOD OF ANTICANCER DRUG | MOSS, NATALIE M | — |
| 18703972 | METHOD FOR DETECTING KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER, METHOD FOR DETERMINING RENAL PROGNOSIS, DETECTION KIT FOR KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER, AND KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER | HAMA, JOANNE | — |
| 18263947 | APPLICATION OF GILTERITINIB TO VARIOUS MUTANTS | BEANE, RANDALL L | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3685 | 1 |
| 1651 | 1 |
| 1647 | 1 |
| 1654 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18877477 | CLINICAL TRIAL ASSISTANCE METHOD AND CLINICAL TRIAL ASSISTANCE SYSTEM | LAGOY, KYRA RAND | 3685 | §101§103 | Final Rejection | 73d overdue | Pending | Dec 20, 2024 |
| 18750552 | EVALUATION METHOD OF ANTICANCER DRUG AND SELECTION METHOD OF ANTICANCER DRUG | MOSS, NATALIE M | 1651 | §101§103§112DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 21, 2024 |
| 18703972 | METHOD FOR DETECTING KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER, METHOD FOR DETERMINING RENAL PROGNOSIS, DETECTION KIT FOR KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER, AND KIDNEY DYSFUNCTION DIAGNOSTIC MARKER | HAMA, JOANNE | 1647 | §101§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 23, 2024 |
| 18263947 | APPLICATION OF GILTERITINIB TO VARIOUS MUTANTS | BEANE, RANDALL L | 1654 | §101§103 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Aug 02, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial