Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Mei S R L currently manages 2 pending office actions within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners, meaning every pending matter is handled by a different individual. The portfolio is concentrated within 1 distinct art unit, suggesting a narrow technical focus for the company's current patenting activities. This concentration in a single art unit means that the specialized review is localized within one division of the patent office.
David G Cormier is identified as the busiest examiner for this portfolio. This specific examiner is responsible for 1 of the pending office actions. This distribution shows that the workload is evenly split among the 2 distinct examiners involved in the prosecution process. Because each examiner is only handling a single matter, the company receives individual attention from different perspectives within the same technical group. This structure allows for a diverse set of feedback even within a small portfolio. The presence of multiple examiners ensures that no single individual's tendencies dominate the entire prosecution landscape for the company. Practitioners can expect a focused prosecution experience where all feedback originates from the same specialized division of the patent office.
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 |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CORMIER, DAVID G | 1 | 64.4% | +28.8% |
| GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | 1 | 63.7% | +51.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19042832 | MACHINE AND METHOD FOR CLEANING LENSES, LIKE EYEGLASS LENSES | CORMIER, DAVID G | — |
| 18294328 | POLISHING TOOL, POLISHING SYSTEM AND METHOD OF POLISHING | GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19042832 | MACHINE AND METHOD FOR CLEANING LENSES, LIKE EYEGLASS LENSES | CORMIER, DAVID G | — |
| 18294328 | POLISHING TOOL, POLISHING SYSTEM AND METHOD OF POLISHING | GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3723 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19042832 | MACHINE AND METHOD FOR CLEANING LENSES, LIKE EYEGLASS LENSES | CORMIER, DAVID G | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jan 31, 2025 |
| 18294328 | POLISHING TOOL, POLISHING SYSTEM AND METHOD OF POLISHING | GUMP, MICHAEL ANTHONY | 3723 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 01, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial