Budget trajectory by phase
Spent vs budget vs comparable medianSpent to date$31,100 of $42,000 · 74% of budgetPredicted cost to allowance (continue)$56,400 · p(allowance) 0.38Comparable median cost to allowance$38,200 · 2.4 OAsMain driversthird OA on written-description grounds; partner share 38% (was 19%); examiner allowance rate 31%
Continue vs abandon
Recommendation confidence 0.72Continue to allowance
—
File continuation with narrowed claims (US: parent must be copending), then abandon parent
—
Expected net value advantage of the continuation path (retained value minus remaining cost, both paths): —. Four families in this art unit took the continuation path this year; three reached allowance within 9 months at an average cost of $11K.
What changed since the last gate
- Written-description rejection maintained after two responses.
- Partner share rose to 38%; declaration strategy added beyond plan.
- Examiner reassigned; new examiner's allowance rate is 31%.
Comparable unit of work
UnitAU 1600 formulation · OA3 responseMatched onArt unit, jurisdiction (US), rejection type, claim count bandExcludedInterference, PTAB appeals, litigation-linked familiesCohortn=240 · through 30 SepMatched median$3,800 for this responseCurrent request$9,600 (+$5,800)
Question for the firm first. What extra volume or complexity explains the difference? Request scope, staffing and approved exceptions before challenging the fee.
Budget read-across
Portfolio value model: this family supports a product with 2029 launch; claims likely allowed cover 12 of 28 sought. IP counsel and the franchise business owner must both sign off before any lapse. Posts to Anaqua as an instruction, not an action. Accruals and reserves.
Decision log
Every option taken here is recorded with the forecast it was based on, so the model can be scored on realized outcomes. Prosecution gate decisions this quarter: 86 · continued 41 · continuation filed 29 · abandoned 11 · re-budgeted 5.