Prosecution Insights
Prosecution Insights
Technology area: Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering
10 pending office actions • 1 art units • 10 examiners • 0 of 10 (0%) have an AI response strategy ready • 20 patents granted in the last 365 days
Ypsomed AG is currently prosecuting 10 pending office actions in the Medical Devices & Mechanical Engineering technology area. All 10 of these actions are concentrated in 1 distinct art unit, which indicates a specific technical focus for the company's current filings. Despite being in a single art unit, there are 10 distinct examiners assigned to these cases. This means the company must navigate 10 different individual perspectives within the same 1 art unit. The 10 pending office actions represent the core of the company's current medical device prosecution.
NORTH, ISABELLA SARAH HYO SO is the busiest examiner, with 1 pending office action. Since each of the 10 examiners is responsible for exactly 1 action, the workload is evenly split among the 10 distinct examiners. This distribution suggests that even with a narrow technical focus in 1 art unit, the 10 pending actions will face varied examination styles. Practitioners should be prepared to address 10 different sets of feedback. The 10 pending office actions require a strategy that accounts for 10 unique examiner temperaments.
Based on the USPTO statutory response window for each pending office action. 5 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date; the rest are excluded from the tile counts.
Every pending office action with a known statutory deadline, placed on a days-until-due axis. Dots left of Today are overdue; the further right, the more runway. Cases that share a deadline window stack vertically. 5 of the docket's apps have a known mailing date.
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 | 4 (40%) |
| §102 only | 3 (30%) |
| §112 only | 1 (10%) |
| Double-patenting only | 1 (10%) |
| Multi-statute (no §101) | 1 (10%) |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| NORTH, ISABELLA SARAH HYO SO | 1 | 67.7% | +9.8% |
| BRUTUS, JOEL F | 1 | 72.8% | +17.7% |
| CARPENTER, WILLIAM R | 1 | 54.4% | +52.6% |
| BOSWORTH, KAMI A | 1 | 69.1% | +28.7% |
| HALL, DEANNA K | 1 | 75.7% | +15.7% |
| SWANSON, LEAH JENNINGS | 1 | 65.5% | +38.3% |
| DARB, HAMZA A. | 1 | 74.4% | +30.9% |
| MEDWAY, SCOTT J | 1 | 66.7% | +23.4% |
| STIGELL, THEODORE J | 1 | 78.3% | +14.9% |
| SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE | 1 | 58.4% | +36.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18514135 | ADD-ON WITH ACTUATOR FOR A DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE | DARB, HAMZA A. | — |
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 8 ordered by deadline are shown.
| App # | Title | Examiner | Due in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18295386 | DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE WITH INCREASED SAFETY | STIGELL, THEODORE J | 8d overdue |
| 18484584 | SAFETY MECHANISM FOR AN AUTOINJECTOR | MEDWAY, SCOTT J | 5d |
| 17952986 | AUTOINJECTOR WITH DISCHARGE DETECTION | SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE | 14d |
| 18600074 | AUTOMATIC INJECTION DEVICE FOR ADMINISTERING A FIXED DOSE | BOSWORTH, KAMI A | 22d |
| 18882240 | CONVEYING DEVICE FOR COLD INJECTION | BRUTUS, JOEL F | — |
| 18734913 | DEVICE FOR THE DOSED ADMINISTRATION OF A FLUID PRODUCT | CARPENTER, WILLIAM R | — |
| 18423786 | INJECTION SYSTEM HAVING SIMPLIFIED DATA TRANSMISSION | HALL, DEANNA K | — |
| 18538194 | DRIVE FOR DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE | SWANSON, LEAH JENNINGS | — |
| Art Unit | Apps |
|---|---|
| 3783 | 8 |
| App # | Title | Examiner | Art Unit | Statutes | Status | Due in | AI | Filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19314461 | A NEEDLE SHIELD REMOVER | NORTH, ISABELLA SARAH HYO SO | 3783 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 4d overdue | Pending | Aug 29, 2025 |
| 18882240 | CONVEYING DEVICE FOR COLD INJECTION | BRUTUS, JOEL F | — | §103 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Sep 11, 2024 |
| 18734913 | DEVICE FOR THE DOSED ADMINISTRATION OF A FLUID PRODUCT | CARPENTER, WILLIAM R | — | DP | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Jun 05, 2024 |
| 18600074 | AUTOMATIC INJECTION DEVICE FOR ADMINISTERING A FIXED DOSE | BOSWORTH, KAMI A | 3783 | §102 | Final Rejection | 22d | Pending | Mar 08, 2024 |
| 18423786 | INJECTION SYSTEM HAVING SIMPLIFIED DATA TRANSMISSION | HALL, DEANNA K | 3783 | §102 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Jan 26, 2024 |
| 18538194 | DRIVE FOR DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE | SWANSON, LEAH JENNINGS | 3783 | §112 | Non-Final OA | — | Pending | Dec 13, 2023 |
| 18514135 | ADD-ON WITH ACTUATOR FOR A DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE | DARB, HAMZA A. | 3783 | §102§112 | Final Rejection | — | Pending | Nov 20, 2023 |
| 18484584 | SAFETY MECHANISM FOR AN AUTOINJECTOR | MEDWAY, SCOTT J | 3783 | §102Other | Final Rejection | 5d | Pending | Oct 11, 2023 |
| 18295386 | DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE WITH INCREASED SAFETY | STIGELL, THEODORE J | 3783 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 8d overdue | Pending | Apr 04, 2023 |
| 17952986 | AUTOINJECTOR WITH DISCHARGE DETECTION | SCHMIDT, EMILY LOUISE | 3783 | §103 | Non-Final OA | 14d | Pending | Sep 26, 2022 |
IP Author helps IP teams respond to office actions faster with AI-generated responses, examiner analytics, and prosecution intelligence.
Start Free Trial