Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
2 pending office actions • 2 art units • 2 examiners • 0 of 2 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
Visterra Inc. has 2 pending office actions in the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. These actions are distributed between 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units, with each examiner handling one action. This distribution indicates a lack of concentration in both examiner assignment and administrative units. The presence of 2 distinct art units suggests that the company's innovations are being evaluated by different specialized groups within the patent office.
The busiest examiner, GILL, RACHEL B, is responsible for 1 pending office action. With 2 distinct examiners and 2 distinct art units for the 2 pending office actions, the company must prepare for two different examination styles and technical standards. Practitioners should analyze the specific tendencies of the 2 distinct examiners to navigate the pending workload effectively. Because there is no concentration across the 2 distinct art units, the prosecution strategy must be tailored to each individual case.
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 (50%) |
| §102 only | 1 (50%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| GILL, RACHEL B | 1 | 65.6% | +28.3% |
| CHATTIN, AMY MARIE | 1 | 73.6% | +44.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18420532 | FORMULATIONS OF ANTIBODY MOLECULES TO DENGUE VIRUS | GILL, RACHEL B | 46d |
| 18167529 | METHODS OF USING INTERLEUKIN-2 AGENTS | CHATTIN, AMY MARIE | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1671 | 1 |
| 1643 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18420532 | FORMULATIONS OF ANTIBODY MOLECULES TO DENGUE VIRUS | GILL, RACHEL B | 1671 | §102 | Non-Final OA | 46d | Pending | Jan 23, 2024 |
| 18167529 | METHODS OF USING INTERLEUKIN-2 AGENTS | CHATTIN, AMY MARIE | 1643 | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Feb 10, 2023 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial