Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
1 pending office actions • 0 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Leoni Kabel GmbH manages a company patent portfolio that currently features 1 pending office action. This single active matter is being reviewed by 1 distinct examiner, which centralizes the company's immediate prosecution risks and opportunities. The data shows 0 distinct art units associated with this portfolio, suggesting that the current filing may be in a preliminary or unassigned stage within the patent office's classification system. For a practitioner, this lack of a designated art unit means the technical categorization of the invention remains in flux, potentially impacting which examination guidelines will eventually apply.
ELLIS, SUEZU Y serves as the busiest examiner for the portfolio, holding 1 busiest examiner pending action. Because this 1 action accounts for the total pending workload, the company's current prosecution strategy is entirely dependent on the feedback from this specific official. Practitioners should note that with only 1 distinct examiner involved, there is no internal diversity of examiner perspectives to compare against when navigating the path to allowance. This 1 to 1 relationship between the total workload and the busiest examiner's docket simplifies the points of contact but also places the entirety of the portfolio's immediate success on the decisions of ELLIS, SUEZU Y.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ELLIS, SUEZU Y | 1 | 76.8% | +21.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18280579 | CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL UNIT FOR A CHARGING PROCESS FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE | ELLIS, SUEZU Y | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18280579 | CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL UNIT FOR A CHARGING PROCESS FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE | ELLIS, SUEZU Y | — |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18280579 | CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL UNIT FOR A CHARGING PROCESS FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE | ELLIS, SUEZU Y | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 06, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial