Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 2 patents granted in the last 365 days
Patsnap Limited is currently prosecuting a patent portfolio within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. The data reveals 1 pending office action, which is handled by a single distinct examiner. This concentration suggests that the company's current active matters are localized within a specific technical niche. For a practitioner, this means that the prosecution outcome is currently tied to the review of one individual at the USPTO.
The busiest examiner for this portfolio is ZEMAN, MARY K, who is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending action. Because there is only 1 pending office action in total, this examiner oversees the entirety of the company's current pending workload. This singular focus in Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals indicates that the company is not currently navigating a broad array of simultaneous office actions across multiple examiners or art units.
Prosecuting with a single distinct art unit requires a strategy that is highly responsive to the specific internal policies of that unit. The absence of examiner diversity for the current pending workload means that practitioners cannot compare rejection patterns across different officials for this portfolio. Instead, the strategy must be entirely customized to the feedback and requirements provided by ZEMAN, MARY K within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals sector.
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 |
|---|---|
| §101 + other | 1 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZEMAN, MARY K | 1 | 59.0% | +34.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17285325 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CLAIM SCOPE LABELING, RETRIEVAL AND INFORMATION LABELING OF GENE SEQUENCE | ZEMAN, MARY K | 10d overdue |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17285325 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CLAIM SCOPE LABELING, RETRIEVAL AND INFORMATION LABELING OF GENE SEQUENCE | ZEMAN, MARY K | 10d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1686 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17285325 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CLAIM SCOPE LABELING, RETRIEVAL AND INFORMATION LABELING OF GENE SEQUENCE | ZEMAN, MARY K | 1686 | §101§102§103§112 | Final Rejection | 10d overdue | Pending | Apr 14, 2021 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial