Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
1 pending office actions • 0 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 2 patents granted in the last 365 days
Live Oak Banking Company is managing 1 pending office action in its current portfolio. The prosecution is handled by 1 distinct examiner, while the data indicates 0 distinct art units for the active matters. This indicates a narrow scope of current patent office interaction for the banking entity.
The busiest examiner, SWIFT, CHARLES M, is assigned 1 busiest examiner pending office action. Because this 1 action is the only one pending for the company, the examiner's specific interpretation of patentability will be the deciding factor for this application. The lack of multiple examiners or art units simplifies the monitoring requirements for the company's legal team.
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 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWIFT, CHARLES M | 1 | 80.7% | +22.6% |
Cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate of 80%+ where the difficulty is Easy or Medium. The top 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18680432 | Systems and Methods for Dynamic Task Generation | SWIFT, CHARLES 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 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18680432 | Systems and Methods for Dynamic Task Generation | SWIFT, CHARLES M | — |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18680432 | Systems and Methods for Dynamic Task Generation | SWIFT, CHARLES M | — | §103 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | May 31, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial