Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
1 pending office actions • 0 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Medasense Biometrics Ltd. currently has 1 pending office action in its patent portfolio. This active matter is handled by 1 distinct examiner, with 0 distinct art units currently associated with the filings. The lack of multiple pending actions or examiners indicates a very focused or early-stage prosecution phase. STICE, PAULA J is the busiest examiner for the company, managing 1 pending office action. This single examiner is responsible for all of the company's current active workload.
The absence of a specified technology area and 0 art units suggests that the prosecution is concentrated in a highly specific or administratively unique category. Practitioners should focus on the individual examination style of the assigned examiner, as the entire active portfolio depends on this single outcome. This centralized structure allows for a direct communication line but offers no alternative prosecution tracks within the current active set. The simplicity of this profile reflects a singular focus for the company's immediate patenting efforts, where the administrative path is distinct from more traditional filings categorized within the technical hierarchy.
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 |
|---|---|
| Double-patenting 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| STICE, PAULA J | 1 | 81.9% | +21.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18946039 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING SPINAL CORD STIMULATION EFFICACY | STICE, PAULA J | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18946039 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING SPINAL CORD STIMULATION EFFICACY | STICE, PAULA J | — |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18946039 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING SPINAL CORD STIMULATION EFFICACY | STICE, PAULA J | — | DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Nov 13, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial