Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Metsä Board Oyj manages a company patent portfolio in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. The portfolio currently has 2 pending office actions. These 2 pending office actions involve 2 distinct examiners but are both located within 1 distinct art unit. This indicates that while different individuals are reviewing the cases, they are doing so within the same specialized department at the USPTO.
CALANDRA, ANTHONY J is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, handling 1 busiest examiner pending office action. Since there are 2 pending office actions and 2 distinct examiners, each examiner is managing exactly one case. The fact that both cases are in 1 distinct art unit suggests a high degree of technological similarity between the 2 pending office actions, as they fall under the same departmental classification.
The prosecution strategy for these 2 pending office actions is centralized within a single art unit. However, the use of 2 distinct examiners means the company must still navigate two different individual perspectives. The busiest examiner's 1 pending action represents half of the current active portfolio. Practitioners should focus on the standards of the 1 distinct art unit while addressing the preferences of both examiners.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 only | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CALANDRA, ANTHONY J | 1 | 62.8% | +18.7% |
| RUSSELL, STEPHEN MATTHEW | 1 | 63.6% | +34.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18278186 | A method, a paperboard product and use of a foam coater and a subsequent high-consistency metering size press | RUSSELL, STEPHEN MATTHEW | 20d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18278186 | A method, a paperboard product and use of a foam coater and a subsequent high-consistency metering size press | RUSSELL, STEPHEN MATTHEW | 20d |
| 18684698 | A method, uses of the same, a pulp composition, and a system | CALANDRA, ANTHONY J | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1748 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18684698 | A method, uses of the same, a pulp composition, and a system | CALANDRA, ANTHONY J | 1748 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 19, 2024 |
| 18278186 | A method, a paperboard product and use of a foam coater and a subsequent high-consistency metering size press | RUSSELL, STEPHEN MATTHEW | 1748 | §102§103 | Final Rejection | 20d | Pending | Aug 22, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial