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
R-Biopharm AG focuses its current patent prosecution in the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. The entity has 1 pending office action, which is being reviewed within 1 distinct art unit. This reflects a highly targeted approach to its current intellectual property filings.
The prosecution is handled by 1 distinct examiner, MARCSISIN, ELLEN JEAN, who is responsible for the 1 busiest examiner pending action. Because there is only one examiner and one art unit involved, the prosecution environment is very stable. The entity's current success at the patent office depends entirely on the resolution of this single pending matter.
Practitioners should recognize that a single examiner holds total influence over the current docket. This requires a strategy that is highly sensitive to the examiner's specific feedback and technical interpretations. The concentrated nature of the portfolio makes each communication with the patent office a critical step for the entity's intellectual property goals.
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 |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MARCSISIN, ELLEN JEAN | 1 | 34.5% | +49.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16968473 | METHOD FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE TOTAL GLUTEN CONTENT OF GRAINS IN FOOD SAMPLES | MARCSISIN, ELLEN JEAN | 16d 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16968473 | METHOD FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE TOTAL GLUTEN CONTENT OF GRAINS IN FOOD SAMPLES | MARCSISIN, ELLEN JEAN | 16d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1677 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16968473 | METHOD FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE TOTAL GLUTEN CONTENT OF GRAINS IN FOOD SAMPLES | MARCSISIN, ELLEN JEAN | 1677 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | 16d overdue | Pending | Aug 07, 2020 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial