Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Levon Michael Khachigian currently manages 2 pending office actions within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. This portfolio shows extreme concentration, as all activity is localized within 1 distinct art unit and handled by 1 distinct examiner. This singular focus suggests a highly specialized set of filings rather than a broad technological spread across the biotechnology sector. The lack of diversity in examiners means that the prosecution path for both actions is tied to the same individual's interpretation of patentability.
The busiest examiner for this portfolio is PECKHAM, RICHARD GRANT, who is responsible for 2 pending office actions. Because this examiner handles the entirety of the work, the prosecution strategy is entirely dependent on the specific tendencies and requirements of this individual. Practitioners should prepare for a consistent but narrow feedback loop given the lack of examiner diversity. With only the 1 distinct art unit involved, there is no variation in the administrative oversight or the general examination guidelines applied to these pending office actions.
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 |
|---|---|
| No statute on record | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PECKHAM, RICHARD GRANT | 2 | 68.1% | +35.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17906288 | TREATMENT METHODS | PECKHAM, RICHARD GRANT | 89d overdue |
| 19347608 | TREATMENT METHODS | PECKHAM, RICHARD GRANT | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1627 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19347608 | TREATMENT METHODS | PECKHAM, RICHARD GRANT | 1627 | — | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Oct 01, 2025 |
| 17906288 | TREATMENT METHODS | PECKHAM, RICHARD GRANT | 1627 | — | Final Rejection | 89d overdue | Pending | Sep 14, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial