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
Venitas Research Center Inc. is currently prosecuting a portfolio within the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. The company has 1 pending office action, which is distributed across 1 distinct art unit. This indicates a highly specific focus for the current patent applications. A single distinct examiner, REDDY, SUNITA, is responsible for the 1 pending office action. As the busiest examiner with 1 busiest examiner pending, REDDY, SUNITA is the primary official determining the trajectory of the company's pending claims.
Practitioners managing such a concentrated portfolio should focus on the specific preferences and history of this one examiner. The presence of only 1 distinct examiner means there is no internal baseline for comparing examiner behavior within this portfolio. The small scale of 1 pending office action allows for a highly targeted prosecution approach. Every interaction with REDDY, SUNITA is critical, as there are no other active matters to balance the portfolio's progress. This high level of concentration in 1 distinct examiner means that the company's immediate patent outcomes are tied to a single examiner's interpretation within the 1 distinct art unit.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDDY, SUNITA | 1 | 67.3% | +61.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17896072 | Electric and Magnetic Neuromodulation | REDDY, SUNITA | 13d |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17896072 | Electric and Magnetic Neuromodulation | REDDY, SUNITA | 13d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3791 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17896072 | Electric and Magnetic Neuromodulation | REDDY, SUNITA | 3791 | §102§103 | Final Rejection | 13d | Pending | Aug 26, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial