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
Ledge Lounger Inc. maintains 2 pending office actions within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed among 2 distinct examiners, though they are all contained within 1 distinct art unit. This structure indicates that while the company is dealing with multiple individuals at the patent office, the technical focus remains narrow enough to stay within a single administrative unit. This concentration allows for a consistent technical dialogue even when addressing different examiners.
The busiest examiner for the portfolio is SAVANI, AVINASH A, who is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending office action. This represents 1 of the 2 pending office actions currently facing the company. The presence of 2 distinct examiners within 1 distinct art unit suggests that while the technical subject matter is consistent, the prosecution experience may vary based on individual examiner preferences. Practitioners should monitor the 2 pending office actions to ensure consistent arguments are presented across the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering filings. Managing these separate tracks within the 1 distinct art unit requires balancing the specific feedback from SAVANI, AVINASH A with the requirements of the other assigned examiner.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 only | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAVANI, AVINASH A | 1 | 74.6% | +20.8% |
| WEISS, NICHOLAS J | 1 | 59.3% | +43.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18507210 | Basketball Hoop Assembly | WEISS, NICHOLAS J | 33d |
| 18655575 | Firepit with Movable Lid | SAVANI, AVINASH A | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3711 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18655575 | Firepit with Movable Lid | SAVANI, AVINASH A | — | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | May 06, 2024 |
| 18507210 | Basketball Hoop Assembly | WEISS, NICHOLAS J | 3711 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 33d | Pending | Nov 13, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial