Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 5 patents granted in the last 365 days
Neuronano AB is managing 2 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units, showing a diversified examination profile for the current workload. By engaging with 2 distinct art units, the company ensures that its medical device technologies are being reviewed by different specialized groups, which can provide a broader range of technical feedback.
The busiest examiner, DIETRICH, JOSEPH M, is responsible for 1 pending office action. With 2 pending office actions split between 2 distinct examiners, the company must navigate the varying procedural expectations and timelines of different administrative divisions simultaneously. This decentralized approach means that the progress of one application is independent of the other, as they are handled by 2 distinct examiners in separate units.
For a company in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering space, having 2 pending office actions across 2 distinct examiners requires a versatile prosecution strategy. Practitioners should monitor the specific habits of DIETRICH, JOSEPH M and the other assigned examiner to optimize the response for each action. The use of 2 distinct art units highlights the potential complexity of the company's innovations within the medical engineering field.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DIETRICH, JOSEPH M | 1 | 80.8% | +8.6% |
| KIM, EUN HWA | 1 | 72.3% | +38.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18256773 | DEVICE FOR INSERTION OF MICROFILAMENTS IN SOFT TISSUE | DIETRICH, JOSEPH M | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18004130 | MICROELECTRODE FOR INSERTION INTO SOFT TISSUE | KIM, EUN HWA | 45d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3796 | 1 |
| 3794 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18256773 | DEVICE FOR INSERTION OF MICROFILAMENTS IN SOFT TISSUE | DIETRICH, JOSEPH M | 3796 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 09, 2023 |
| 18004130 | MICROELECTRODE FOR INSERTION INTO SOFT TISSUE | KIM, EUN HWA | 3794 | §103 | Final Rejection | 45d overdue | Pending | Jan 03, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial