Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Prospercare LLC currently has 1 pending office action focused within the Transportation, E-Commerce & Mechanical Systems technology area. The company's prosecution activity is concentrated, involving 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit. This structure indicates that the portfolio's immediate legal challenges are confined to a single administrative path within the patent office.
The busiest examiner for the portfolio is WEBB III, JAMES L, who is currently handling 1 pending office action. This single action represents the entirety of the company's pending workload. Practitioners can focus their efforts on the specific procedural preferences of this examiner and the single art unit involved. The presence of 1 distinct art unit suggests that the subject matter remains within a specific technical classification. With 1 distinct examiner managing the matter, the company faces a streamlined but highly specific set of interactions. The data identifies 1 distinct art unit as the primary point of contact for this administrative process. The 1 pending office action requires a focused response to ensure successful prosecution within the specified technology area.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| WEBB III, JAMES L | 1 | 14.1% | +22.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18722222 | MACHINE LEARNING-BASED RECRUITING SYSTEM | WEBB III, JAMES L | 16d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18722222 | MACHINE LEARNING-BASED RECRUITING SYSTEM | WEBB III, JAMES L | 16d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3624 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18722222 | MACHINE LEARNING-BASED RECRUITING SYSTEM | WEBB III, JAMES L | 3624 | §101§103§112 | Final Rejection | 16d | Pending | Jun 20, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial