Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Minervax Aps operates a patent portfolio in the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. The company currently has 1 pending office action. This matter is assigned to 1 distinct examiner and is located within 1 distinct art unit. These metrics indicate a focused prosecution effort within a single technical domain. The company does not currently have a large volume of active cases or a wide distribution of examiners. This concentration suggests a highly specialized focus for the company's current research and development filings in biotechnology.
The busiest examiner for the portfolio is GRASER, JENNIFER E, who is handling 1 pending office action. This examiner is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending case, which is the only pending action for the company. This means that GRASER, JENNIFER E is the sole official currently reviewing the company's patent applications. The involvement of 1 distinct art unit suggests that the technical subject matter is being evaluated by 1 specialized group. This concentration allows for a consistent prosecution narrative but also creates a single point of dependency for the company's patent goals. The focus on 1 distinct examiner simplifies the tracking of examiner-specific behavior and preferences, allowing for more targeted legal responses.
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 |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GRASER, JENNIFER E | 1 | 76.7% | +23.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18284513 | IMMUNOGENIC FUSION PROTEIN | GRASER, JENNIFER E | 7d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18284513 | IMMUNOGENIC FUSION PROTEIN | GRASER, JENNIFER E | 7d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1645 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18284513 | IMMUNOGENIC FUSION PROTEIN | GRASER, JENNIFER E | 1645 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 7d | Pending | Sep 27, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial