Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 1 patents granted in the last 365 days
Tampere University Foundation Sr is currently managing 2 pending office actions within the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. These actions are split between 2 distinct examiners, ensuring that each examiner is responsible for exactly one matter. Furthermore, the portfolio is distributed across 2 distinct art units, reflecting different technical classifications within the broader biotechnology field. This suggests that the foundation's current legal challenges are not confined to a single administrative silo.
SALMON, KATHERINE D is the busiest examiner for the company, currently holding 1 pending office action. Because there are 2 pending office actions and 2 distinct examiners, the workload is evenly distributed. This structure means that no single examiner or art unit dominates the current prosecution landscape for the foundation. The presence of 2 distinct art units suggests that the university's research spans different administrative categories within the patent office, even with only 2 pending office actions currently active, requiring a versatile approach to different technical groups.
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 (50%) |
| §103 only | 1 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SALMON, KATHERINE D | 1 | 42.8% | +37.9% |
| BOWERS, ERIN M | 1 | 54.7% | +10.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18894793 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING TARGETS FOR PRECISION CANCER THERAPY | SALMON, KATHERINE D | 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 2 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18894793 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING TARGETS FOR PRECISION CANCER THERAPY | SALMON, KATHERINE D | 29d |
| 18249174 | SPHEROIDAL SELF-ASSEMBLED PEPTIDE HYDROGELS COMPRISING CELLS | BOWERS, ERIN M | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1682 | 1 |
| 1653 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18894793 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING TARGETS FOR PRECISION CANCER THERAPY | SALMON, KATHERINE D | 1682 | §101§102§112 | Non-Final OA | 29d | Pending | Sep 24, 2024 |
| 18249174 | SPHEROIDAL SELF-ASSEMBLED PEPTIDE HYDROGELS COMPRISING CELLS | BOWERS, ERIN M | 1653 | §103 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Apr 14, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial