Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19058911 | Methods of Preparing Dual-Indexed DNA Libraries for Bisulfite Conversion Sequencing | February 2025 | August 2025 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18231724 | ERROR SUPPRESSION IN SEQUENCED DNA FRAGMENTS USING REDUNDANT READS WITH UNIQUE MOLECULAR INDICES (UMIS) | August 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18312471 | EPIGENETIC MARKERS OF COLORECTAL CANCERS AND DIAGNOSTIC METHODS USING THE SAME | May 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17972442 | IMMOBILIZATION-BASED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENETIC ANALYSIS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS | October 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17871402 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RAPID FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF GENE VARIANTS | July 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17665195 | ENHANCED LIGATION IN SEQUENCING LIBRARY PREPARATION | February 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17586143 | METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF GENOMIC COPY CHANGES IN DNA SAMPLES | January 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17323902 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BARCODING NUCLEIC ACIDS | May 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17135689 | MASSIVELY PARALLEL ON-CHIP COALESCENCE OF MICROEMULSIONS | December 2020 | September 2025 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17057569 | Single Cell Mapping and Transcriptome Analysis | November 2020 | October 2025 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17002133 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR SEQUENCES GUIDING CAS9 TARGETING | August 2020 | August 2025 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16481319 | DISPLAY OF MOLECULES ON SILENTLY GENETICALLY ENCODED NANOSCALE CARRIERS FOR DETERMINING SYNERGISTIC MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS | July 2019 | April 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15971417 | METHODS FOR TRAPPING AND BARCODING DISCRETE BIOLOGICAL UNITS IN HYDROGEL | May 2018 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 15543305 | NORMALIZED ITERATIVE BARCODING AND SEQUENCING OF DNA COLLECTIONS | July 2017 | February 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 13254859 | METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTING MUTAGENESIS LIBRARIES IN SITU | September 2011 | May 2016 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KAUP, SAHANA S.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.
In this dataset, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner KAUP, SAHANA S works in Art Unit 1612 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 59 months.
Examiner KAUP, SAHANA S's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 40% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by KAUP, SAHANA S receive 4.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KAUP, SAHANA S is 59 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KAUP, SAHANA S. This interview benefit is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 0% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 0% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
Not Legal Advice: The information provided in this report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent for advice specific to your situation.
No Guarantees: We do not provide any guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the statistics presented above. Patent prosecution statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data and are subject to data quality limitations, processing errors, and changes in USPTO practices over time.
Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances will IronCrow AI be liable for any outcome, decision, or action resulting from your reliance on the statistics, analysis, or recommendations presented in this report. Past prosecution patterns do not guarantee future results.
Use at Your Own Risk: While we strive to provide accurate and useful prosecution statistics, you should independently verify any information that is material to your prosecution strategy and use your professional judgment in all patent prosecution matters.