Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
3 pending office actions • 2 art units • 3 examiners • 0 of 3 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 7 patents granted in the last 365 days
Vilex LLC currently has 3 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. These cases are distributed among 3 distinct examiners, with SHIRSAT, MARCELA identified as the busiest examiner holding 1 pending action. This means the 3 pending matters are each assigned to a different individual, spreading the workload across multiple personnel.
The prosecution activity spans 2 distinct art units. Because there are 3 distinct examiners but only 2 distinct art units, there is overlap in the technical groups assigned to this portfolio. Managing these 3 pending office actions requires a strategy that accounts for the nuances of 2 different art units and the individual preferences of 3 different examiners. This structure necessitates a coordinated approach to ensure consistency across the 2 distinct art units involved in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering sector.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 2 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 (33%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 2 (67%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SHIRSAT, MARCELA | 1 | 73.6% | +19.0% |
| PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | 1 | 55.2% | +35.6% |
| SIPP, AMY R. | 1 | 71.1% | +25.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18372410 | ANKLE ARTHROPLASTY DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | 15d |
| 18125626 | SYNDESMOSIS TENSIONING INSTRUMENTS, IMPLANTS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | SIPP, AMY R. | 57d |
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 3 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18372410 | ANKLE ARTHROPLASTY DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | 15d |
| 18125626 | SYNDESMOSIS TENSIONING INSTRUMENTS, IMPLANTS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | SIPP, AMY R. | 57d |
| 18439458 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A SALVATION PLATE | SHIRSAT, MARCELA | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3775 | 2 |
| 3799 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18439458 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING A SALVATION PLATE | SHIRSAT, MARCELA | 3775 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 12, 2024 |
| 18372410 | ANKLE ARTHROPLASTY DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | PELLEGRINO, BRIAN E | 3799 | §103§112 | Final Rejection | 15d | Pending | Sep 25, 2023 |
| 18125626 | SYNDESMOSIS TENSIONING INSTRUMENTS, IMPLANTS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | SIPP, AMY R. | 3775 | §102§103§112 | Non-Final OA | 57d | Pending | Mar 23, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial