Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
6 pending office actions • 2 art units • 5 examiners • 0 of 6 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 4 patents granted in the last 365 days
Palliare Limited maintains a portfolio in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area with 6 pending office actions. These actions are distributed among 5 distinct examiners, suggesting that most matters are handled by unique reviewers. This level of examiner diversity can lead to varied prosecution experiences across the company's active applications.
The company's prosecution spans 2 distinct art units, which concentrates the technical review within a limited number of specialized groups. PONTON, JAMES D is the busiest examiner, currently overseeing 2 pending office actions. The remaining pending office actions are divided among the other distinct examiners, with each handling a single matter. With 6 pending office actions and 5 distinct examiners, the portfolio demonstrates a high ratio of examiners to active cases within the 2 distinct art units.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 3 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date; the rest are excluded from the tile counts.
Every pending office action with a known statutory deadline, placed on a days-until-due axis. Dots left of Today are overdue; the further right, the more runway. Cases that share a deadline window stack vertically. 3 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date.
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 (17%) |
| §102 only | 1 (17%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 4 (67%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PONTON, JAMES D | 2 | 79.9% | +32.7% |
| RABAGLIA, BRIDGET ELIZABETH | 1 | 68.5% | +15.9% |
| BYRD, BRIGID K | 1 | 71.4% | +46.4% |
| DARB, HAMZA A. | 1 | 74.4% | +30.9% |
| STIGELL, THEODORE J | 1 | 78.3% | +14.9% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 4 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18355552 | METHOD FOR SUTURING TWO PORTIONS OF A VESSEL TOGETHER | RABAGLIA, BRIDGET ELIZABETH | 30d |
| 18635459 | INSUFFLATOR AND A METHOD FOR INSUFFLATING A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT | PONTON, JAMES D | — |
| 18699921 | AN INSUFFLATOR AND A METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN OPTIMUM MAXIMUM PRESSURE BEYOND WHICH A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT SHOULD NOT BE INSUFFLATED | PONTON, JAMES D | — |
| 17794423 | DEVICE, APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR MINIMISING THE DISPERSAL OF PATHOGENS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT DURING INSUFFLATING OF A CAVITY IN A SUBJECT | STIGELL, THEODORE 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 6 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17927588 | AN ATTACHMENT FOR A TROCAR | BYRD, BRIGID K | 19d |
| 18355552 | METHOD FOR SUTURING TWO PORTIONS OF A VESSEL TOGETHER | RABAGLIA, BRIDGET ELIZABETH | 30d |
| 17970861 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INSUFFLATING A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT | DARB, HAMZA A. | 36d |
| 18635459 | INSUFFLATOR AND A METHOD FOR INSUFFLATING A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT | PONTON, JAMES D | — |
| 18699921 | AN INSUFFLATOR AND A METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN OPTIMUM MAXIMUM PRESSURE BEYOND WHICH A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT SHOULD NOT BE INSUFFLATED | PONTON, JAMES D | — |
| 17794423 | DEVICE, APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR MINIMISING THE DISPERSAL OF PATHOGENS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT DURING INSUFFLATING OF A CAVITY IN A SUBJECT | STIGELL, THEODORE J | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3771 | 2 |
| 3783 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18635459 | INSUFFLATOR AND A METHOD FOR INSUFFLATING A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT | PONTON, JAMES D | — | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 15, 2024 |
| 18699921 | AN INSUFFLATOR AND A METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN OPTIMUM MAXIMUM PRESSURE BEYOND WHICH A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT SHOULD NOT BE INSUFFLATED | PONTON, JAMES D | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 10, 2024 |
| 18355552 | METHOD FOR SUTURING TWO PORTIONS OF A VESSEL TOGETHER | RABAGLIA, BRIDGET ELIZABETH | 3771 | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | 30d | Pending | Jul 20, 2023 |
| 17927588 | AN ATTACHMENT FOR A TROCAR | BYRD, BRIGID K | 3771 | §102 | Non-Final OA | 19d | Pending | Nov 23, 2022 |
| 17970861 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INSUFFLATING A CAVITY IN THE BODY OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECT | DARB, HAMZA A. | 3783 | §103 | Final Rejection | 36d | Pending | Oct 21, 2022 |
| 17794423 | DEVICE, APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR MINIMISING THE DISPERSAL OF PATHOGENS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT DURING INSUFFLATING OF A CAVITY IN A SUBJECT | STIGELL, THEODORE J | 3783 | §102§103 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Jul 21, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial