Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Tm4 Inc. currently has 1 pending office action in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. This active case is assigned to 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit, showing a singular focus in the current prosecution cycle. For an applicant in the medical and mechanical fields, this suggests a specific technical objective rather than a diverse array of filings. The alignment of 1 pending action with 1 distinct art unit indicates that the applicant's current legal efforts are concentrated within a specific mechanical or medical sub-discipline.
The busiest examiner, ABRAHAM, JOSE K, is currently handling 1 pending office action. Since this examiner manages the only pending action in the portfolio, the prosecution outcome for Tm4 Inc. is entirely dependent on the interaction with this 1 individual. This streamlined structure allows the applicant to tailor their response to the specific technical requirements of the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering area without the distraction of multiple simultaneous filings. Practitioners should focus on the specific examiner's history to predict the timeline for this 1 pending matter.
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 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABRAHAM, JOSE K | 1 | 83.2% | +32.9% |
Cases in front of an examiner with an allow rate of 80%+ where the difficulty is Easy or Medium. The top 1 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18787580 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIELECTRIC COATED BUSBARS | ABRAHAM, JOSE K | 48d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18787580 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIELECTRIC COATED BUSBARS | ABRAHAM, JOSE K | 48d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3729 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18787580 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIELECTRIC COATED BUSBARS | ABRAHAM, JOSE K | 3729 | §103 | Final Rejection | 48d | Pending | Jul 29, 2024 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial