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 • 6 patents granted in the last 365 days
Richard Wolf GmbH is currently managing 2 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners, which shows that each active matter is being reviewed by a different individual. This distribution indicates a decentralized prosecution environment for the company's current filings.
The portfolio is concentrated within 1 distinct art unit, suggesting that the company's medical device innovations are focused within a single technical classification. BOLER, RYNAE E is the busiest examiner for the company, currently handling 1 pending office action. Since both of the 2 distinct examiners are responsible for 1 pending office action each, the company's 2 pending office actions are split evenly between them. The presence of 2 pending office actions within 1 distinct art unit means that while the examiners are different, they are likely applying the same technical standards and guidelines to the company's applications.
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) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOLER, RYNAE E | 1 | 62.4% | +8.8% |
| NEAL, TIMOTHY JAY | 1 | 77.8% | +13.5% |
Multi-statute / §101-driven matters, or cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate under 30%. The top 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18841464 | TARGET DEVICE FOR THE TARGETED GUIDANCE OF A HOLLOW NEEDLE DURING AN ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE | NEAL, TIMOTHY JAY | 33d |
| 18880906 | ENDOSCOPIC INSTRUMENT HAVING A HANDPIECE | BOLER, RYNAE E | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18841464 | TARGET DEVICE FOR THE TARGETED GUIDANCE OF A HOLLOW NEEDLE DURING AN ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE | NEAL, TIMOTHY JAY | 33d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3795 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18880906 | ENDOSCOPIC INSTRUMENT HAVING A HANDPIECE | BOLER, RYNAE E | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jan 03, 2025 |
| 18841464 | TARGET DEVICE FOR THE TARGETED GUIDANCE OF A HOLLOW NEEDLE DURING AN ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE | NEAL, TIMOTHY JAY | 3795 | §102§103§112Other | Final Rejection | 33d | Pending | Aug 26, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial