Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
1 pending office actions • 0 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 7 patents granted in the last 365 days
The Coleman Company, Inc. currently has 1 pending office action. This action is assigned to 1 distinct examiner. The data shows 0 distinct art units associated with the current pending workload, which may reflect a specific filing status or a transitional state in the reporting of the portfolio's technical classification. With 1 distinct examiner involved, the prosecution is currently centralized under a single point of contact at the office, allowing for direct communication on the pending matter without the need to navigate multiple administrative groups.
CARTER, AMY ELIZABETH is the busiest examiner for the company, managing 1 pending office action. This single action constitutes the entirety of the 1 pending office actions currently recorded. Because the busiest examiner pending count of 1 matches the total number of actions, there is no distribution of work across multiple personnel. Practitioners should focus their efforts on the specific requirements of this 1 pending office action, as it represents the full scope of the company's active prosecution docket as shown in the current data. The absence of multiple examiners or art units simplifies the coordination of the company's intellectual property strategy.
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 |
|---|---|
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 1 (100%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CARTER, AMY ELIZABETH | 1 | 78.9% | +34.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18717559 | FOLDING MECHANISM FOR A PORTABLE PRODUCT | CARTER, AMY ELIZABETH | — |
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 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18717559 | FOLDING MECHANISM FOR A PORTABLE PRODUCT | CARTER, AMY ELIZABETH | — |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18717559 | FOLDING MECHANISM FOR A PORTABLE PRODUCT | CARTER, AMY ELIZABETH | — | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 07, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial