Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Networking & Security • Communications
4 pending office actions • 2 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 4 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 3 patents granted in the last 365 days
Science Corporation currently has 4 pending office actions within the Communications technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct art units, suggesting a focused technical scope for the company's current filings. The prosecution involves 3 distinct examiners, which indicates some concentration in the personnel reviewing the company's applications. This focus within 2 distinct art units may allow for a more specialized understanding of the technology by the assigned examiners.
Stefan Bradley Campbell is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, currently handling 2 pending office actions. This examiner is responsible for half of the 4 pending office actions, which may provide a more consistent examination experience for those specific matters. The remaining actions are handled by the other 2 distinct examiners. This small number of 3 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units suggests a relatively contained prosecution environment. Practitioners should monitor the busiest examiner's approach, as they manage 2 of the 4 pending office actions currently active.
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 (25%) |
| §102 only | 1 (25%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (50%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAMPBELL, STEFAN BRADLEY | 2 | — | — |
| MA, CALVIN | 1 | 76.0% | +13.1% |
| ANDERSON II, JAMES M | 1 | 75.7% | +10.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19143639 | A SYSTEM FOR SELECTIVELY PROJECTING AN OBJECT OF INTEREST ONTO A PREDEFINED RETINAL AREA | ANDERSON II, JAMES M | — |
| 18740854 | NEURAL INTERFACE DEVICE | CAMPBELL, STEFAN BRADLEY | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19359471 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE | MA, CALVIN | — |
| 19143639 | A SYSTEM FOR SELECTIVELY PROJECTING AN OBJECT OF INTEREST ONTO A PREDEFINED RETINAL AREA | ANDERSON II, JAMES M | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 2629 | 1 |
| 2425 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19359471 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE | MA, CALVIN | 2629 | §102 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Oct 15, 2025 |
| 19143639 | A SYSTEM FOR SELECTIVELY PROJECTING AN OBJECT OF INTEREST ONTO A PREDEFINED RETINAL AREA | ANDERSON II, JAMES M | 2425 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 26, 2025 |
| 18740854 | NEURAL INTERFACE DEVICE | CAMPBELL, STEFAN BRADLEY | — | §103§112Other | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 12, 2024 |
| 18600364 | NEURAL INTERFACE DEVICE | CAMPBELL, STEFAN BRADLEY | — | §103Other | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Mar 08, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial