Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Semiconductors, Circuits & Optics • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Magnes AG is navigating 2 pending office actions within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct art units and involve distinct examiners, indicating a lack of overlap in the current prosecution. ROBLES, EILEEN is the busiest examiner, holding 1 pending action.
Because each of the 2 pending actions is handled by a different examiner in a different art unit, the company must manage separate tracks of examination. This structure requires the prosecution team to adapt to the specific standards of 2 distinct art units simultaneously for their pending matters. The absence of a centralized examiner or art unit means that the company's strategy must be highly adaptable to different technical perspectives.
Counsel should focus on the individual requirements of ROBLES, EILEEN while also preparing for the distinct expectations of the other examiner involved. The pending actions represent a diversified entry into the medical devices space, requiring precise technical arguments for each unique application. Success will depend on the ability to navigate these separate USPTO environments with consistent quality and attention to detail.
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 |
|---|---|
| §101 + other | 1 (50%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 1 (50%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROBLES, EILEEN | 1 | — | — |
| EDWARDS, ETHAN WESLEY | 1 | 68.2% | +15.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18254175 | SENSORY STIMULATION | EDWARDS, ETHAN WESLEY | 127d overdue |
| 18869298 | INTERVENTION BASED ON DETECTED GAIT KINEMATICS | ROBLES, EILEEN | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18254175 | SENSORY STIMULATION | EDWARDS, ETHAN WESLEY | 127d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3792 | 1 |
| 2857 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18869298 | INTERVENTION BASED ON DETECTED GAIT KINEMATICS | ROBLES, EILEEN | 3792 | §101§102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Nov 26, 2024 |
| 18254175 | SENSORY STIMULATION | EDWARDS, ETHAN WESLEY | 2857 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 127d overdue | Pending | May 24, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial