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
Shrikanta Chattopadhyay currently manages 1 pending office action within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. This specific action is assigned to 1 distinct examiner working across 1 distinct art unit. The concentration of the portfolio suggests a specific technical focus or an early-stage prosecution phase where examiner diversity has not yet developed. For practitioners, this means the current USPTO relationship is channeled through a specific administrative path, making the preferences of that unit paramount.
HUDSON, AMY ROSE is identified as the busiest examiner for the company. This individual is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending office action. Because the total number of pending office actions is 1, this examiner handles the entirety of the company's current workload at the patent office. This concentration of pending matters under a specific individual requires a tailored approach to prosecution that aligns with the examiner's past patterns and requirements within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals field.
The presence of 1 distinct art unit simplifies the administrative landscape for this portfolio. With 1 busiest examiner pending office action, the company faces a narrow set of hurdles. Success in these proceedings will depend on the interaction between the legal team and HUDSON, AMY ROSE, as there are no other active matters to balance the prosecution strategy. The 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit define the current scope of the company's patent office engagement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUDSON, AMY ROSE | 1 | 74.9% | +11.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17783573 | ALDH3A2 INHIBITION AND FERROPTOSIS INDUCTION FOR CANCER THERAPY | HUDSON, AMY ROSE | 29d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17783573 | ALDH3A2 INHIBITION AND FERROPTOSIS INDUCTION FOR CANCER THERAPY | HUDSON, AMY ROSE | 29d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1636 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17783573 | ALDH3A2 INHIBITION AND FERROPTOSIS INDUCTION FOR CANCER THERAPY | HUDSON, AMY ROSE | 1636 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 29d | Pending | Jun 08, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial