Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Computing & Software
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Shenzhen I & T Micro Aluminum Technology Co. Ltd. currently has 1 pending office action within the Computing & Software technology area. The prosecution of this portfolio is concentrated under 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit. This arrangement implies that the company's active patent interests are currently limited to a specific software or computing niche, rather than being distributed across various technical fields or multiple examination groups within the USPTO.
STCLAIR, ANDREW D is the busiest examiner for the company, managing the 1 busiest examiner pending office action. Since 1 distinct examiner is responsible for the entire pending workload, the company's success in this area is closely linked to this examiner's specific review process. The presence of only 1 distinct art unit simplifies the administrative burden of prosecution, as the company only needs to navigate the specific guidelines and precedents of a single examination group. This focus on 1 pending office action allows for a dedicated legal effort toward a single technical objective.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| STCLAIR, ANDREW D | 1 | 60.2% | +25.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17630526 | Manufacturing method for electrode of electricity storage device and electrode of electricity storage device | STCLAIR, ANDREW D | 514d 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17630526 | Manufacturing method for electrode of electricity storage device and electrode of electricity storage device | STCLAIR, ANDREW D | 514d overdue |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 2178 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17630526 | Manufacturing method for electrode of electricity storage device and electrode of electricity storage device | STCLAIR, ANDREW D | 2178 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | 514d overdue | Pending | Jan 27, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial