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
Tri-Pac, Inc. is currently managing 1 pending office action within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. This specific case is being reviewed by 1 distinct examiner, which indicates that the company patent prosecution is focused on a specific technical disclosure. The presence of 1 pending office action means that the applicant immediate legal efforts are directed toward a particular set of claims.
The busiest examiner for this portfolio is HIBBERT, MARY C, who is responsible for 1 pending office action. Since this is the only active case, HIBBERT, MARY C has oversight of the company current interactions with the patent office. This creates a direct relationship where the company prosecution success is dependent on the evaluation and feedback of this individual examiner.
The involvement of 1 distinct art unit means that the technical review is conducted within a specialized group at the patent office. With 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit, the prosecution process is concentrated. The company must meet the specific technical standards and procedural preferences of the 1 distinct art unit involved in the review of this application.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIBBERT, MARY C | 1 | 66.4% | +26.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19532051 | POWDER FILLING TECHNOLOGY FOR AEROSOL CANISTERS | HIBBERT, MARY C | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19532051 | POWDER FILLING TECHNOLOGY FOR AEROSOL CANISTERS | HIBBERT, MARY C | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3731 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19532051 | POWDER FILLING TECHNOLOGY FOR AEROSOL CANISTERS | HIBBERT, MARY C | 3731 | §103§112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 06, 2026 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial