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 • 2 patents granted in the last 365 days
Tarkett Sports Canada Inc. is active in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. The portfolio currently includes 3 pending office actions. These actions are distributed among 3 distinct examiners, which means each examiner is reviewing a separate application. The prosecution is conducted across 2 distinct art units, suggesting the company's materials-related innovations fall into multiple classification categories.
CHEN, BRET P is the busiest examiner for the portfolio, currently managing 1 pending office action. Because there are 3 distinct examiners for 3 pending office actions, the workload is perfectly distributed with no examiner handling more than 1 action. This distribution across 2 distinct art units and multiple examiners requires a prosecution strategy that accounts for different examiner preferences. The 3 pending office actions represent the entirety of the company's current active challenges in the Chemistry & Materials sector. Practitioners can expect to interact with several different individuals, including CHEN, BRET P, to resolve these outstanding matters.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 2 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 |
|---|---|
| §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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHEN, BRET P | 1 | 84.5% | +16.4% |
| BOYD, JENNIFER A | 1 | 32.3% | +44.5% |
| MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T | 1 | 53.9% | +30.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18956483 | ARTIFICIAL TURF TREATMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | CHEN, BRET P | 62d |
| 18913350 | TURF QUICK CHANGE SYSTEM AND METHOD | BOYD, JENNIFER A | — |
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 3 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18036850 | ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEM COMPRISING HYDROPHOBIC SAND | MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T | 8d |
| 18956483 | ARTIFICIAL TURF TREATMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | CHEN, BRET P | 62d |
| 18913350 | TURF QUICK CHANGE SYSTEM AND METHOD | BOYD, JENNIFER A | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1718 | 1 |
| 1789 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18956483 | ARTIFICIAL TURF TREATMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | CHEN, BRET P | 1718 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | 62d | Pending | Nov 22, 2024 |
| 18913350 | TURF QUICK CHANGE SYSTEM AND METHOD | BOYD, JENNIFER A | — | §102§103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Oct 11, 2024 |
| 18036850 | ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEM COMPRISING HYDROPHOBIC SAND | MCKINNON, LASHAWNDA T | 1789 | §103 | Final Rejection | 8d | Pending | May 12, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial