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 • 4 patents granted in the last 365 days
Kimpex Inc. currently faces 1 pending office action in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. The prosecution is highly concentrated, as the portfolio involves a distinct examiner and a distinct art unit, with the count for each of these categories matching the number of pending actions. This level of focus implies that the company's current patenting efforts are centered on a specific technical niche within the broader field. Practitioners should note that such concentration allows for a very targeted approach to examiner interviews and responses, as there is no need to reconcile conflicting feedback from different art units.
DUCKWORTH, BRIANNA T is the busiest examiner assigned to these matters, responsible for 1 pending office action. Since this individual is the only examiner currently reviewing the applicant's work, the outcome of this matter will significantly impact the company's immediate patenting success in this technology area. The lack of diversity in examiners means that the applicant's success is currently tied to the specific tendencies and requirements of an individual office professional. This streamlined environment simplifies the administrative burden of tracking deadlines and examiner-specific nuances across the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering landscape.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MORAN, KATHERINE M | 1 | 54.2% | +24.2% |
| DUCKWORTH, BRIANNA T | 1 | 44.8% | +47.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18109620 | HELMET LINER ASSEMBLY | DUCKWORTH, BRIANNA T | 28d |
| 19531280 | HELMET WITH AERODYNAMIC PEAK | MORAN, KATHERINE M | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18109620 | HELMET LINER ASSEMBLY | DUCKWORTH, BRIANNA T | 28d |
| 19531280 | HELMET WITH AERODYNAMIC PEAK | MORAN, KATHERINE M | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3732 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19531280 | HELMET WITH AERODYNAMIC PEAK | MORAN, KATHERINE M | 3732 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 05, 2026 |
| 18109620 | HELMET LINER ASSEMBLY | DUCKWORTH, BRIANNA T | 3732 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 28d | Pending | Feb 14, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial