Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Chemistry & Materials
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
T En Process Technology Inc. currently manages 3 pending office actions within the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These matters are distributed among 3 distinct examiners, indicating that each application is being reviewed by a different individual. The prosecution is organized across 2 distinct art units, suggesting that the company's filings in the Chemistry & Materials sector are grouped into several technical sub-categories.
The busiest examiner for the portfolio is TOOMER, CEPHIA D, who is responsible for 1 busiest examiner pending office action. This confirms that the workload is perfectly distributed, as each of the 3 distinct examiners is handling exactly one of the company's pending matters. No single examiner currently manages more than one of the 3 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials sector.
The use of 2 distinct art units for 3 pending office actions indicates a degree of technical focus within the Chemistry & Materials field. However, with 3 distinct examiners involved, the company must still account for a variety of examination styles. The presence of 3 distinct examiners for 3 pending office actions requires the company to maintain several simultaneous dialogues with the patent office while following the standards of 2 distinct art units.
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 (33%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (67%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TOOMER, CEPHIA D | 1 | 74.4% | +2.5% |
| NGUYEN, TAM M | 1 | 77.1% | +11.6% |
| PATEL, SMITA S | 1 | 70.2% | +57.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18829029 | MAXIMUM OLEFINS PRODUCTION UTILIZING MULTI-STAGE CATALYST REACTION AND REGENERATION | NGUYEN, TAM M | — |
| 18130073 | PROCESS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FORMATION | PATEL, SMITA S | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18829029 | MAXIMUM OLEFINS PRODUCTION UTILIZING MULTI-STAGE CATALYST REACTION AND REGENERATION | NGUYEN, TAM M | — |
| 18130073 | PROCESS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FORMATION | PATEL, SMITA S | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1771 | 1 |
| 1732 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18993883 | RECOVERY OF STYRENE MONOMER FROM POLYSTYRENE | TOOMER, CEPHIA D | 1771 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jan 13, 2025 |
| 18829029 | MAXIMUM OLEFINS PRODUCTION UTILIZING MULTI-STAGE CATALYST REACTION AND REGENERATION | NGUYEN, TAM M | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 09, 2024 |
| 18130073 | PROCESS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FORMATION | PATEL, SMITA S | 1732 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Apr 03, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial