Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
S L Munson & Company has 1 pending office action in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. The prosecution is confined to 1 distinct art unit and 1 distinct examiner. This indicates a very specific technical focus for the company's current patent efforts. For the applicant, this means the entire success of the current portfolio rests on a single thread of interaction within the USPTO. The concentration in a single technology area further emphasizes the specialized nature of these filings.
Pegah Parvini is the busiest examiner for this portfolio, managing the 1 pending office action. With 1 distinct examiner and 1 art unit, the prosecution process is highly focused. This lack of variety in examiners and art units means the outcome of the current portfolio depends on the interactions with this specific official. Practitioners should prioritize understanding the specific examination history and preferences of this examiner, as there are no other pending matters to provide alternative paths to allowance. Navigating this single relationship is the central task for the company's legal representatives.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 only | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PARVINI, PEGAH | 1 | 70.2% | +12.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18451997 | FUNCTIONALLY GRADED ABRASIVE STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF USING AND MAKING SAME | PARVINI, PEGAH | 155d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1731 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18451997 | FUNCTIONALLY GRADED ABRASIVE STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF USING AND MAKING SAME | PARVINI, PEGAH | 1731 | §103 | Final Rejection | 155d overdue | Pending | Aug 18, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial