Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology areas: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals • Semiconductors, Circuits & Optics
3 pending office actions • 2 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 3 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Stichting VU manages a company patent portfolio within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. The portfolio currently has 3 pending office actions. This volume indicates a moderate level of active prosecution across the company's pharmaceutical and biological innovations, reflecting ongoing research and development efforts.
The prosecution work is distributed among 3 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. This distribution shows that the company's patent applications are being reviewed by multiple individuals, though they remain concentrated within a small number of art units. The presence of 3 distinct examiners for 3 pending office actions means that each pending matter is being handled by a different person, which may lead to varying prosecution timelines across the portfolio.
D MARGARET M SEAMAN is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, with 1 busiest examiner pending office action. This examiner's workload represents 1 of the total 3 pending office actions. The remaining actions are handled by the other 2 distinct examiners, indicating that no single examiner dominates the company's current prosecution pipeline. This spread of responsibility suggests that the university's patent strategy is not overly dependent on the tendencies of a single examiner.
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 |
|---|---|
| §101 + other | 1 (33%) |
| §103 only | 1 (33%) |
| §112 only | 1 (33%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEAMAN, D MARGARET M | 1 | 76.5% | +8.0% |
| BAUSCH, SARAE L | 1 | 29.8% | +44.7% |
| NGUYEN, KEMAYA DEANN HUU | 1 | 74.4% | +38.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18254732 | PERSONALIZED TUMOR MARKERS | BAUSCH, SARAE L | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18023172 | SPECTROSCOPY APPARATUS | NGUYEN, KEMAYA DEANN HUU | 73d overdue |
| 18254732 | PERSONALIZED TUMOR MARKERS | BAUSCH, SARAE L | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1699 | 1 |
| 2877 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18843308 | MODULATORS OF ACKR3 AND USES THEREOF | SEAMAN, D MARGARET M | — | §112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 03, 2024 |
| 18254732 | PERSONALIZED TUMOR MARKERS | BAUSCH, SARAE L | 1699 | §101§102§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | May 26, 2023 |
| 18023172 | SPECTROSCOPY APPARATUS | NGUYEN, KEMAYA DEANN HUU | 2877 | §103 | Final Rejection | 73d overdue | Pending | Feb 24, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial