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 • 8 patents granted in the last 365 days
THE HERSHEY Company is currently managing 3 pending office actions in the Chemistry & Materials technology area. These actions are split among 3 distinct examiners, ensuring that no single examiner has a concentrated influence over the pending portfolio. This arrangement requires the company to navigate separate examiner preferences during the prosecution process. Each examiner brings a different set of prior art interpretations to the table.
The pending cases are situated within 2 distinct art units, showing some concentration of technical subject matter despite the examiner variety. SWEENEY, MAURA ELIZABETH is the busiest examiner with 1 pending office action. Because the number of pending actions equals the number of distinct examiners, each examiner is currently reviewing a single application for the company. This spread across 2 art units suggests the portfolio touches on multiple distinct chemical or material classifications.
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 |
|---|---|
| §103 only | 2 (67%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 1 (33%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWEENEY, MAURA ELIZABETH | 1 | 5.4% | -6.8% |
| TRAN, LIEN THUY | 1 | 28.6% | +26.5% |
| LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE | 1 | 34.6% | +35.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18534808 | REDUCED SUGAR MILK CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONS AND METHODS FOR MAKING THE SAME | SWEENEY, MAURA ELIZABETH | — |
| 18547886 | SHELF-STABLE FRIED CONFECTIONERY FOOD PRODUCTS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME | TRAN, LIEN THUY | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18334977 | Popcorn-Based Food Product | LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE | 29d |
| 18547886 | SHELF-STABLE FRIED CONFECTIONERY FOOD PRODUCTS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME | TRAN, LIEN THUY | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1791 | 2 |
| 1793 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18534808 | REDUCED SUGAR MILK CHOCOLATE CONFECTIONS AND METHODS FOR MAKING THE SAME | SWEENEY, MAURA ELIZABETH | 1791 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Dec 11, 2023 |
| 18547886 | SHELF-STABLE FRIED CONFECTIONERY FOOD PRODUCTS AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME | TRAN, LIEN THUY | 1793 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Aug 25, 2023 |
| 18334977 | Popcorn-Based Food Product | LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE | 1791 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 29d | Pending | Jun 14, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial