Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
2 pending office actions • 1 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Oregon Tool Inc. is active in the Medical Devices and Mechanical Engineering technology area with 2 pending office actions. These actions are distributed between 2 distinct examiners, which provides perspectives during the prosecution process. Both pending matters are located within 1 distinct art unit, suggesting a technical focus for these mechanical filings. The presence of 2 pending office actions indicates that the company is currently focused on a set of innovations within the mechanical engineering field.
The busiest examiner, MACFARLANE, EVAN H, is responsible for 1 pending office action. With the 2 pending office actions split between two different examiners, the company must manage two individual examination styles within the same art unit. This requires a coordinated approach to ensure that the prosecution of both matters remains consistent. Practitioners should monitor both examiners to identify any common technical hurdles in the Medical Devices and Mechanical Engineering space. Engaging with 2 distinct examiners allows the company to receive feedback from multiple reviewers on its patent applications.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MACFARLANE, EVAN H | 1 | 50.7% | +42.2% |
| ALIE, GHASSEM | 1 | 69.3% | +32.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18532131 | CHAINSAW GUIDE BAR WITH ONBOARD CIRCUITRY | ALIE, GHASSEM | 41d |
| 18906058 | CONTOURED CUTTING SEGMENT FOR A CHAINSAW CHAIN | MACFARLANE, EVAN H | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18532131 | CHAINSAW GUIDE BAR WITH ONBOARD CIRCUITRY | ALIE, GHASSEM | 41d |
| 18906058 | CONTOURED CUTTING SEGMENT FOR A CHAINSAW CHAIN | MACFARLANE, EVAN H | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3724 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18906058 | CONTOURED CUTTING SEGMENT FOR A CHAINSAW CHAIN | MACFARLANE, EVAN H | 3724 | §102§112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Oct 03, 2024 |
| 18532131 | CHAINSAW GUIDE BAR WITH ONBOARD CIRCUITRY | ALIE, GHASSEM | 3724 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | 41d | Pending | Dec 07, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial