Technology area: Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Olden Labs Pbc is currently managing 2 pending office actions in the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area. These actions are assigned to 2 distinct examiners, with each examiner reviewing one case. The prosecution is centralized within 1 distinct art unit, indicating that the company's current patent applications are technically related and subject to the same departmental standards.
The busiest examiner, KENIRY, HEATHER J, is responsible for 1 pending case. This distribution, where 2 distinct examiners handle 2 pending office actions, means that the practitioner must manage two separate relationships at the USPTO. However, because both cases are in 1 distinct art unit, the practitioner can likely use a consistent set of technical definitions and prior art interpretations across both matters within the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems area.
Having 2 pending office actions suggests a focused and manageable portfolio. The practitioner's strategy should focus on the individual preferences of the 2 distinct examiners while leveraging the shared context of the 1 distinct art unit. Since the busiest examiner, KENIRY, HEATHER J, only handles 1 pending case, there is no opportunity to resolve both outstanding actions through a single point of contact, requiring a dual-track prosecution approach for the 2 pending office actions.
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) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KENIRY, HEATHER J | 1 | 81.0% | +19.5% |
| ALEKSIC, NEVENA | 1 | 75.0% | +9.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18318444 | SMART CAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HOUSING AND ASSAYING MULTIPLE VERTEBRATE ANIMALS | ALEKSIC, NEVENA | 27d |
| 19195131 | AUTOMATED ROBOTIC ARM ASSEMBLY AND SMART CAGE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM FOR VERTEBRATE ANIMAL CARE | KENIRY, HEATHER J | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19195131 | AUTOMATED ROBOTIC ARM ASSEMBLY AND SMART CAGE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM FOR VERTEBRATE ANIMAL CARE | KENIRY, HEATHER J | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3647 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19195131 | AUTOMATED ROBOTIC ARM ASSEMBLY AND SMART CAGE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM FOR VERTEBRATE ANIMAL CARE | KENIRY, HEATHER J | — | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 30, 2025 |
| 18318444 | SMART CAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HOUSING AND ASSAYING MULTIPLE VERTEBRATE ANIMALS | ALEKSIC, NEVENA | 3647 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | 27d | Pending | May 16, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial