Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026

The American University In Cairo

Technology areas: Chemistry & Materials • Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering

2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 2 patents granted in the last 365 days

Analysis

The American University In Cairo currently has 2 pending office actions within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These actions are distributed across 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units. This distribution indicates that each of the university's pending matters is being examined independently by different individuals in different specialized groups, with no overlap in the current prosecution personnel. This variety requires a flexible approach to prosecution that accounts for the distinct standards of each involved unit within Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering.

The busiest examiner for the university is PEKARSKAYA, LILYA, who is assigned 1 pending office action. Given that there are 2 pending office actions in total, PEKARSKAYA, LILYA handles a portion of the current pending workload alongside another examiner. This distribution means that the university's prosecution success is dependent on the decisions of two different individuals, each operating within their own specific art unit. Practitioners must be prepared to navigate the unique procedural nuances of multiple examiners, as each 1 pending office action follows its own track.

The presence of 2 distinct art units suggests that the pending applications cover different technical aspects of the field. Practitioners must manage separate prosecution tracks, each with its own set of examiner expectations and art unit norms. While the portfolio is small, the lack of concentration in a single art unit or examiner requires a strategy that can adapt to different perspectives. This structure necessitates careful tracking of individual deadlines and examiner preferences to maintain a cohesive intellectual property strategy for the university.

Written from this page's own data; every figure is computed from USPTO records and verified before publication.

Portfolio Summary

2
Total Pending OAs
1
Non-Final OAs
1
Final Rejections
0
Advisory / Quayle

Response Deadline Pressure

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.

0
Overdue
1
Due this week
0
Due this month
0
Due in next 60 days
0
Due later

Case Difficulty Mix

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.

1
Hard (50%)
1
Medium (50%)
0
Easy (0%)
0
Unknown (0%)

Rejection Statute Mix

BucketCases
§103 only1 (50%)
Multi-statute (no §101)1 (50%)

Industry Mix

How the docket's pending cases split across USPTO tech-center bands.

1
Life Sciences
50% of docket
0
Information Tech
0% of docket
0
Communications
0% of docket
0
Semiconductors
0% of docket
1
Mechanical / Eng
50% of docket
0
Business / Other
0% of docket

Time-on-OA Estimate

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.

20 h
Manual time on pending OAs
4 h
Time saved (low, 20%)
7 h
Time saved (mid, 35%)
0.2 wks
FTE-weeks freed (mid)

Top Examiners on this docket

ExaminerApps on this docketAllow rateInterview lift
PEKARSKAYA, LILYA 1 67.7% +41.5%
BEKKER, KELLY JO 1 16.7% +35.4%

Hard Cases (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 #TitleExaminerDue in
18274283 Nanoencapsulation of Jania rubens seaweeds' antioxidants for food applications BEKKER, KELLY JO 6d

Interview Candidates (2)

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 #TitleExaminerDue in
18274283 Nanoencapsulation of Jania rubens seaweeds' antioxidants for food applications BEKKER, KELLY JO 6d
18275672 Shape Memory Alloy Capsule Micropump for Drug Delivery Applications PEKARSKAYA, LILYA —

Top Art Units

Art UnitApps
3746 1
1792 1

Pending Office Actions

App #TitleExaminerArt UnitStatutesStatusDue inAIFiled
18275672 Shape Memory Alloy Capsule Micropump for Drug Delivery Applications PEKARSKAYA, LILYA 3746 §103 Final Rejection — Pending Aug 03, 2023
18274283 Nanoencapsulation of Jania rubens seaweeds' antioxidants for food applications BEKKER, KELLY JO 1792 §103§112 Non-Final OA 6d Pending Jul 26, 2023

Managing The American University In Cairo's Patent Portfolio?

IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.

Start Free Trial

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month