Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Kapp Niles GmbH & Co. Kg is managing 2 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are handled by 2 distinct examiners, ensuring that no 1 examiner is responsible for the total of the company's current filings. Despite having 2 examiners, the prosecution is centralized within 1 distinct art unit, which may lead to more consistent internal policy applications for the applicant.
The busiest examiner, MARKMAN, MAKENA, is responsible for 1 pending office action. This is 1 of the 2 pending actions for the company. The focus on 1 distinct art unit suggests that while 2 different examiners are involved, the technical focus remains within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering field. This concentration allows the applicant to focus their strategy on the specific standards of 1 art unit while navigating the individual preferences of 2 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 |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MARKMAN, MAKENA | 1 | 59.8% | +38.6% |
| GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | 1 | 63.7% | +51.5% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17430576 | METHOD FOR GRINDING OR POLISHING A GEARWHEEL OR A WORKPIECE WITH A GEARWHEEL-LIKE PROFILE IN A GRINDING OR POLISHING MACHINE | GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | 32d overdue |
| 18839810 | METHOD FOR ROLLING HARD-FINE MACHINING OF A TOOTHING OF A WORKPIECE BY MEANS OF A GRINDING TOOL | MARKMAN, MAKENA | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17430576 | METHOD FOR GRINDING OR POLISHING A GEARWHEEL OR A WORKPIECE WITH A GEARWHEEL-LIKE PROFILE IN A GRINDING OR POLISHING MACHINE | GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | 32d overdue |
| 18839810 | METHOD FOR ROLLING HARD-FINE MACHINING OF A TOOTHING OF A WORKPIECE BY MEANS OF A GRINDING TOOL | MARKMAN, MAKENA | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3723 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18839810 | METHOD FOR ROLLING HARD-FINE MACHINING OF A TOOTHING OF A WORKPIECE BY MEANS OF A GRINDING TOOL | MARKMAN, MAKENA | — | §102§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Aug 20, 2024 |
| 17430576 | METHOD FOR GRINDING OR POLISHING A GEARWHEEL OR A WORKPIECE WITH A GEARWHEEL-LIKE PROFILE IN A GRINDING OR POLISHING MACHINE | GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | 3723 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 32d overdue | Pending | Aug 12, 2021 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial