Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Mirai International AG has 2 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. The prosecution of these matters is split between 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, currently overseeing 1 pending office action.
With 2 pending office actions and 2 distinct examiners, each examiner is responsible for a single application. The distribution across 2 distinct art units suggests that the company's technology is being evaluated by different specialized groups within the patent office. This lack of concentration in a single art unit or under a single examiner means the company must manage two independent prosecution paths. Each of the 2 pending office actions requires a tailored approach for its specific examiner and art unit. PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI handles only one of the 2 pending office actions.
For a patent practitioner, the 2 distinct art units represent different technical hurdles within the Chemistry & Materials field. Because there are 2 distinct examiners, the company cannot rely on a single point of contact to advance its portfolio. The 2 pending office actions represent the current active workload for Mirai International AG. Success will depend on navigating the specific requirements of 2 distinct examiners across 2 different administrative divisions.
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 |
|---|---|
| §112 only | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI | 1 | 45.7% | +36.1% |
| LACHICA, ERICSON M | 1 | 30.0% | +35.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18438829 | METHOD FOR OPERATING A BIOREACTOR FOR CULTIVATED MEAT AND CORRESPONDING BIOREACTOR | LACHICA, ERICSON M | 21d |
| 18717733 | EDIBLE MICROCARRIER FOR THE PREPARATION OF CULTURED MEAT AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME | PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1793 | 1 |
| 1792 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18717733 | EDIBLE MICROCARRIER FOR THE PREPARATION OF CULTURED MEAT AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME | PRAKASH, SUBBALAKSHMI | 1793 | §112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 07, 2024 |
| 18438829 | METHOD FOR OPERATING A BIOREACTOR FOR CULTIVATED MEAT AND CORRESPONDING BIOREACTOR | LACHICA, ERICSON M | 1792 | §112 | Final Rejection | 21d | Pending | Feb 12, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial