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
Picomole Inc. operates within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area, where it currently faces 2 pending office actions. These actions are being reviewed by 2 distinct examiners, indicating that the workload is not concentrated under a single individual. However, the prosecution is centralized within 1 distinct art unit. This suggests that while different examiners are involved, they likely share the same supervisory structure and internal art unit policies.
The busiest examiner for this portfolio is SHOSTAK, ANDREY, who is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending action. This represents exactly half of the total 2 pending office actions for the company. For a practitioner, this distribution means that the prosecution strategy must account for the specific nuances of multiple examiners while navigating the unified standards of the 1 distinct art unit. The focus remains entirely within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering sector.
Having 2 distinct examiners for the pending office actions provides a small degree of examiner diversity, which can be useful for comparing rejection patterns within the art unit. However, with SHOSTAK, ANDREY handling 1 of these actions, the outcome of the portfolio is evenly split between the assigned officials. Practitioners should monitor how the art unit's specific culture influences both pending matters to ensure a cohesive response strategy.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 2 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 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SHOSTAK, ANDREY | 1 | 52.2% | +61.8% |
| AGAHI, PUYA | 1 | 49.2% | +24.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16805187 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COLLECTING A BREATH SAMPLE USING A METERING DEVICE ALONG AN EXHAUST CONDUIT | AGAHI, PUYA | 85d overdue |
| 17160729 | BREATH COLLECTION APPARATUS WITH DOWNSTREAM GAS SAMPLING DEVICE | SHOSTAK, ANDREY | 22d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3791 | 2 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17160729 | BREATH COLLECTION APPARATUS WITH DOWNSTREAM GAS SAMPLING DEVICE | SHOSTAK, ANDREY | 3791 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 22d | Pending | Jan 28, 2021 |
| 16805187 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COLLECTING A BREATH SAMPLE USING A METERING DEVICE ALONG AN EXHAUST CONDUIT | AGAHI, PUYA | 3791 | §103 | Final Rejection | 85d overdue | Pending | Feb 28, 2020 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial