Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
3 pending office actions • 2 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 3 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
John Bean Technologies Corporation currently has 3 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These matters are distributed among 3 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. This level of distribution for a small number of actions suggests that the company's patent applications are being reviewed in multiple technical contexts within the broader Chemistry & Materials field. The use of 2 distinct art units indicates that the portfolio's technical scope is broad enough to trigger different administrative jurisdictions.
SAVANI, AVINASH A is the busiest examiner, currently managing 1 pending office action. Since each of the 3 pending office actions is assigned to a different examiner, the company is engaging with a unique official for every active case. This variety across the 3 distinct examiners requires the applicant to manage multiple examiner relationships and adapt to the specific nuances of different administrative environments simultaneously. With multiple active matters in play, the company has several opportunities to secure patent rights across the 2 distinct art units involved.
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) | 3 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAVANI, AVINASH A | 1 | 74.6% | +20.8% |
| SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H | 1 | 56.3% | +37.7% |
| ISKRA, JOSEPH W | 1 | 71.3% | +27.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18729686 | SPIRAL CONVEYOR THERMAL PROCESSING SYSTEM | SAVANI, AVINASH A | — |
| 18554304 | OVEN VENTILATION FOR CONVECTIVE COOKING AND DRYING OF FOOD | SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H | — |
| 18326366 | HYPODERMIC INJECTION NEEDLE AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS INCLUDING THE SAME | ISKRA, JOSEPH W | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18729686 | SPIRAL CONVEYOR THERMAL PROCESSING SYSTEM | SAVANI, AVINASH A | — |
| 18554304 | OVEN VENTILATION FOR CONVECTIVE COOKING AND DRYING OF FOOD | SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H | — |
| 18326366 | HYPODERMIC INJECTION NEEDLE AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS INCLUDING THE SAME | ISKRA, JOSEPH W | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1792 | 1 |
| 3761 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18729686 | SPIRAL CONVEYOR THERMAL PROCESSING SYSTEM | SAVANI, AVINASH A | 1792 | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jul 17, 2024 |
| 18554304 | OVEN VENTILATION FOR CONVECTIVE COOKING AND DRYING OF FOOD | SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H | — | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Oct 06, 2023 |
| 18326366 | HYPODERMIC INJECTION NEEDLE AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS INCLUDING THE SAME | ISKRA, JOSEPH W | 3761 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | May 31, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial