Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Jenoptik Automatisierungstechnik GmbH is currently managing 1 pending office action within the Chemistry & Materials technology area. This action is assigned to 1 distinct examiner, which centralizes the company's current prosecution activity. The matter is located within 1 distinct art unit, indicating a specific technical focus for the pending application.
The busiest examiner for the portfolio is KHARE, ATUL P, who is responsible for the 1 pending office action. Because the busiest examiner pending count of 1 represents the entirety of the company's pending workload of 1, the prosecution strategy is highly dependent on this 1 examiner's review. This concentration allows for a very focused legal approach, as there are no competing examiner requirements or art unit variations to manage. Practitioners can dedicate their resources to addressing the specific technical concerns raised by the examiner in the chemistry and materials sector.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KHARE, ATUL P | 1 | 54.8% | +72.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18836594 | METHOD FOR MAKING A PERFORATION LINE IN AN AIRBAG COVER | KHARE, ATUL P | 49d overdue |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18836594 | METHOD FOR MAKING A PERFORATION LINE IN AN AIRBAG COVER | KHARE, ATUL P | 49d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1742 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18836594 | METHOD FOR MAKING A PERFORATION LINE IN AN AIRBAG COVER | KHARE, ATUL P | 1742 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 49d overdue | Pending | Aug 07, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial