Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals
1 pending office actions • 1 art units • 1 examiners • 0 of 1 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready
William Scott Hopkins manages a patent portfolio in the Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals technology area. Currently, the portfolio has 1 pending office action, which is the only active item in the prosecution pipeline. This 1 pending office action is assigned to BEVERIDGE, CONNOR HAMMOND, who is the busiest examiner for this entity. With 1 busiest examiner pending action, the immediate future of the portfolio's patent protection depends on the feedback from this examiner.
The prosecution is characterized by a high degree of focus, involving 1 distinct examiner and 1 distinct art unit. This indicates that the innovations are likely specialized within a particular area of Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals. Working within 1 distinct art unit means the applicant is subject to the specific procedural norms of that group. The involvement of 1 distinct examiner simplifies the prosecution process, as there is no need to coordinate across different examiner preferences or styles. This 1 pending office action represents the total current workload, allowing for a concentrated effort on this specific application.
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 |
|---|---|
| §101 + other | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BEVERIDGE, CONNOR HAMMOND | 1 | 0.0% | +0.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17864393 | MACHINE LEARNING DRUG EVALUATION USING LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHIC TESTING | BEVERIDGE, CONNOR HAMMOND | 5d |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 1687 | 1 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17864393 | MACHINE LEARNING DRUG EVALUATION USING LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHIC TESTING | BEVERIDGE, CONNOR HAMMOND | 1687 | §101§103 | Final Rejection | 5d | Pending | Jul 14, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial