Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Patech Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd. currently manages 2 pending office actions within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. This workload is distributed across 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. This distribution of actions across the examiners relative to the 2 total actions indicates the level of concentration in the company's prosecution focus. The review process is situated within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals sector, where the art units define the administrative scope. Such a structure suggests that the company's intellectual property in this sector is being reviewed by specific administrative paths, which can influence the consistency of feedback from the patent office.
The busiest examiner for this portfolio is ROSENTHAL, ANDREW S, who is responsible for 1 pending office action. This individual handles 1 actions out of the total pending for the company. For practitioners, the involvement of 2 distinct examiners across 2 art units provides a specific map of the current prosecution landscape. This concentration or dispersion of matters requires a tailored approach to examiner interviews and response strategies to ensure that the technical arguments remain effective across all active files.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROSENTHAL, ANDREW S | 1 | 51.8% | +38.7% |
| STEINKE, SEAN JAMES | 1 | 12.5% | +42.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18452342 | EMULSION COMPONENT AND OIL-IN-WATER SUNSCREEN PRODUCT AND OIL-IN-WATER SUNSCREEN LOTION INCLUDING THE SAME | STEINKE, SEAN JAMES | 19d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18452342 | EMULSION COMPONENT AND OIL-IN-WATER SUNSCREEN PRODUCT AND OIL-IN-WATER SUNSCREEN LOTION INCLUDING THE SAME | STEINKE, SEAN JAMES | 19d |
| 18640764 | COSMETIC ESTER COMPOSITION | ROSENTHAL, ANDREW S | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1613 | 1 |
| 1619 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18640764 | COSMETIC ESTER COMPOSITION | ROSENTHAL, ANDREW S | 1613 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 19, 2024 |
| 18452342 | EMULSION COMPONENT AND OIL-IN-WATER SUNSCREEN PRODUCT AND OIL-IN-WATER SUNSCREEN LOTION INCLUDING THE SAME | STEINKE, SEAN JAMES | 1619 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 19d | Pending | Aug 18, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial