Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Major Map Co. Ltd. operates within the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area. The company's patent portfolio currently includes 1 pending office action. This action is situated within 1 distinct art unit, reflecting a narrow administrative footprint for its current patent filings.
Prosecution for the portfolio involves 1 distinct examiner, concentrating the company's legal responses. SWARTZ, STEPHEN S is identified as the busiest examiner. This examiner is currently handling 1 busiest examiner pending action. Because the total pending office actions and the busiest examiner pending count both equal 1, the entire current prosecution pipeline is dependent on the evaluation of 1 examiner. This structure allows for a highly focused strategy within the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems field. Success depends on navigating the specific standards of the 1 distinct art unit involved.
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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWARTZ, STEPHEN S | 1 | 31.6% | +25.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19207543 | HOW TO RECOMMEND DEPARTMENTS THROUGH PERSONAL COMPETENCY ANALYSIS | SWARTZ, STEPHEN S | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19207543 | HOW TO RECOMMEND DEPARTMENTS THROUGH PERSONAL COMPETENCY ANALYSIS | SWARTZ, STEPHEN S | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3625 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19207543 | HOW TO RECOMMEND DEPARTMENTS THROUGH PERSONAL COMPETENCY ANALYSIS | SWARTZ, STEPHEN S | 3625 | §101§102 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | May 14, 2025 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial