USPTO Examiner WAX ROBERT A - Art Unit 1615

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17254311FIBROUS WOUND DRESSING COMPRISING AN ANTISEPTICDecember 2020August 2023Abandon3201NoNo
17085302MANUFACTURING DEVICE FOR GELATIN CAPSULEOctober 2020August 2023Abandon3311NoNo
16767005WOUND-TREATING ABSORBENTMay 2020August 2023Abandon3920NoNo
16874601TREATMENT OF CANCERMay 2020March 2022Abandon2210NoNo
16762384BIOMIMETIC PRO-REGENERATIVE SCAFFOLDS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFMay 2020August 2023Abandon3911NoNo
16796409OSMOTIC DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMFebruary 2020November 2022Abandon3320NoYes
16496522IMPLANTABLE AND REMOVABLE DRUG DELIVERY DEVICESeptember 2019January 2022Abandon2710NoNo
16463320SOLID ORAL COMPOSITION CONTAINING DYESMay 2019January 2022Abandon3211NoNo
16343652ANTI-MICROBIAL ARTICLESApril 2019May 2023Abandon4910NoNo
16267238PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONSFebruary 2019March 2023Abandon4911NoNo
16096955AEROSOL GEL COMPOSITIONOctober 2018May 2023Abandon5431NoNo
16159175COSMETIC COMPOSITIONOctober 2018May 2023Abandon5531NoNo
16137155POLYMER-LIPID HYBRID NANOPARTICLES OF CAPECITABINE UTILIZING MICROMIXING AND CAPECITABINE AMPHIPHILIC PROPERTIESSeptember 2018August 2023Abandon5941NoNo
15945838BODY OIL CANDLEApril 2018January 2022Abandon4640NoNo
15850308BONE FILLER COMPOSITIONDecember 2017August 2022Abandon5540NoYes
15845608SUGAR-BASED DISPERSIONDecember 2017November 2022Abandon5920NoYes
14159119LONG TERM DRUG DELIVERY DEVICES WITH POLYURETHANE BASED POLYMERS AND THEIR MANUFACTUREJanuary 2014February 2015Abandon1310NoNo
13945085INGESTIBLE CANKER SORE TREATMENTJuly 2013March 2015Abandon2011NoNo
13822015ORAL VETERINARY PREPARATIONSMarch 2013August 2014Abandon1710NoNo
13755958PESTICIDAL COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING ROSEMARY OIL AND WINTERGREEN OILJanuary 2013June 2014Allow1712NoNo
13745075METHOD FOR PREPARING MICROSPHERES AND MICROSPHERES PRODUCED THEREBYJanuary 2013January 2015Abandon2410NoNo
13809265TOPICAL USE OF STEVIOL OR DERIVATIVES IN HAIR CAREJanuary 2013March 2015Abandon2711NoNo
13729776TOPICAL DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH DUAL CARRIERSDecember 2012November 2015Abandon3520NoYes
13666773COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING EDEMANovember 2012December 2014Abandon2611NoNo
13648991Modified Release Formulations of Anti-Irritability DrugsOctober 2012March 2015Abandon3010NoNo
13622636Even Deposition and Low Rub-Off CompositionsSeptember 2012August 2017Abandon5820NoYes
13349961ONE STEP FIRE ANT CONTROLJanuary 2012November 2014Abandon3401NoNo
13323569GOLDEN MEAN HARMONIZED WATER AND AQUEOUS SOLUTIONSDecember 2011November 2014Abandon3520NoYes
13284479PEST-CONTROL, COMPOSITIONS, AND METHODS AND PRODUCTS UTILIZING SAMEOctober 2011August 2014Abandon3410NoNo
13001518BAIT GRANULE PRODUCTION METHODJune 2011June 2014Abandon4201NoNo
13164584Pesticide Treatment Of Soils Or Substrates With Sulphur CompoundsJune 2011August 2013Allow2621NoNo
13066566MYCOATTRACTANTS AND MYCOPESTICIDESApril 2011March 2013Allow2331NoNo
13081348THIAZOLES AS FUNGICIDESApril 2011August 2014Abandon4101NoNo
12863850EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE COMPOSITIONJuly 2010June 2014Abandon4721NoYes
12803738Polymeric endoprostheses with modified erosion rates and methods of manufactureJuly 2010May 2015Abandon5840NoYes
12682133USE OF A 1-N-(HALO-3-PYRIDYLMETHYL)-N-METHYLAMINO-1-ALKYLAMINO-2-NITROETHYLENE DERIVATIVE FOR PREPARING A TOPICAL VETERINARY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR COMBATING EXTERNAL PARASITESJune 2010April 2014Allow4831YesNo
12776325FLUIDIC TISSUE AUGMENTATION COMPOSITIONS AND METHODSMay 2010November 2015Abandon6041NoYes
12750135FOXN1 AND PIGMENTATIONMarch 2010October 2011Abandon1811NoNo
12558813FLASHMELT ORAL DOSAGE FORMULATIONSeptember 2009September 2011Abandon2411NoNo
12493002ORAL SUSTAINED-RELEASE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION OF INDAPAMIDE, PRODUCTION AND USE THEREOFJune 2009September 2011Abandon2710NoNo
12520565PESTICIDAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING FOSETYL-ALUMINIUM, PROPAMOCARB-HCL AND AN INSECTICIDE SUBSTANCEJune 2009April 2016Abandon6021NoYes
12471910NOVEL PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATION IN THE FORM OF CELLULOSE CAPSULES SUITABLE FOR BENZIMIDAZOLE DERIVATIVESMay 2009September 2011Abandon2810NoNo
12464847Pharmaceutical compositions of a non-enteric coated proton pump inhibitor with a carbonate salt and bicarbonate salt combinationMay 2009May 2011Abandon2410NoNo
12445474HYDROPHOBIC ZINC OXIDE POWDERApril 2009January 2012Abandon3310NoNo
12223503Methods and Compositions for Improving the Incorporation of Orthopaedic and Orthodontic ImplantsMarch 2009June 2011Abandon3510NoNo
11988805Implantable Medical Devices Comprising a Flavonoid or Derivative Thereof for Prevention of RestenosisMarch 2009January 2012Abandon4810NoNo
12393445HYDROXYCITRIC ACID SALT COMPOSITION AND METHOD OF USE FOR REDUCING BODY WEIGHTFebruary 2009January 2012Abandon3510NoNo
12087455Method for Manufacturing a Pharmaceutical Form of Oseltamivir PhosphateDecember 2008October 2011Abandon3910NoNo
12094115PATHOGEN - CONTROLLING PRODUCTSNovember 2008September 2011Abandon4010NoNo
12259844VETERINARY FORMULATION FOR ADMINISTRATION OF A WATER-INSOLUBLE DRUG TO A TARGET ANIMAL THROUGH A WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMOctober 2008February 2015Allow6021NoYes
12245223ADMIXTURE OF CAROTENOIDS HAVING PROVITAMIN A ACTIVITY AND CAROTENOIDS DEVOID OF PROVITAMIN A ACTIVITY FOR TREATING AGING SYMPTOMSOctober 2008May 2011Abandon3110NoNo
12225707Bulking of Soft Tissue using Drug Delivery MicrospheresSeptember 2008October 2011Abandon3610NoNo
12161355GEL-FORMING COMPOSITION FOR MEDICAL USE, ADMINISTRATION DEVICE FOR THE COMPOSITION, AND DRUG RELEASE CONTROLLING CARRIERSeptember 2008March 2012Abandon4420NoNo
12207702ORALLY ADMINSTRABLE OPIOID FORMULATIONS HAVING EXTENDED DURATION OF EFFECTSeptember 2008May 2011Abandon3210NoNo
12194996SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ORAL OSMOTIC DRUG DELIVERY DEVICES, AND METHODS OF ADMINISTERING SAMEAugust 2008October 2011Abandon3710NoNo
10586085Protease Inhibitors For the Treatment of Digestive PathologiesAugust 2008September 2011Abandon6010NoNo
12184492COLLOIDAL MAGNETIC NANOBIOPARTICLES FOR CYTOTOXICITY AND DRUG DELIVERYAugust 2008September 2011Abandon3812NoNo
12144285TRANSDERMAL DELIVERY SYSTEM COMPRISING GLYCOPYRROLATE TO TREAT SIALORRHEAJune 2008July 2011Abandon3710NoNo
12083155Biocompatible Block Copolymer, Use Thereof and Manufacturing Method ThereofJune 2008July 2011Abandon3910NoNo
12130657UROLOGICAL DEVICES INCORPORATING COLLAGEN INHIBITORSMay 2008November 2014Abandon6041NoNo
12148302Topical antifungal treatmentApril 2008July 2011Abandon3910NoNo
12009220Pest control compositions and methodsJanuary 2008July 2014Abandon6031YesNo
11931897NON-SYSTEMIC CONTROL OF PARASITESOctober 2007April 2015Abandon6041YesYes
11766740Method of Treating Pain Utilizing Controlled Release Oxymorphone Pharmaceutical Compositions and Instruction on Dosing for Renal ImpairmentJune 2007February 2013Abandon6040YesYes
10532703Therapeutic compositionsJanuary 2007May 2011Abandon6001NoNo
11436391Methods and compositions relating to animal dietary acidsMay 2006September 2011Abandon6021YesNo
11434472Implantable devices for the delivery of therapeutic agents to an orthopaedic surgical siteMay 2006August 2011Abandon6012YesNo
11416488Non-sticky coatings with therapeutic agents for medical devicesMay 2006October 2011Abandon6040NoNo
11021309Enhanced absorption of modified release dosage formsDecember 2004November 2010Abandon6032NoNo
11022093Homeopathic sublingual dosage forms and methods thereofDecember 2004June 2010Abandon6021YesNo
10977805Single-dose taste inhibitor unitsOctober 2004December 2010Abandon6011NoNo
10932839Capsule containing active substance pelletsSeptember 2004May 2011Abandon6041YesYes
10875627Pulsatile release histamine H2 antagonist dosage formJune 2004June 2010Abandon6021NoYes
10800031Novel orally administrable formulation of nitrofurantoin and a method for preparing said formulationMarch 2004February 2015Abandon6051NoYes
10736049TRANSDERMAL BUPRENORPHINE TO TREAT PAIN IN SICKLE CELL CRISISDecember 2003February 2008Allow5020NoYes
10713929MODIFIED RELEASE DOSAGE FORMS OF SKELETAL MUSCLE RELAXANTSNovember 2003March 2008Allow5270YesYes
10693383Solid and semi-solid polymeric ionic conjugatesOctober 2003May 2009Abandon6040NoNo
10213907Crystalline drug particles prepared using a controlled precipitation (recrystallization) processAugust 2002March 2010Abandon60100NoYes
10051708APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR PREVENTING OR TREATING FAILURE OF HEMODIALYSIS VASCULAR ACCESS AND OTHER VASCULAR GRAFTSJanuary 2002November 2003Allow2210NoNo
09925348Solid pharmaceutical dosage formulation of hydrophobic drugsAugust 2001December 2003Abandon2830NoNo
09735125Method for disinfecting body fluidsFebruary 2001January 2012Abandon6020NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WAX, ROBERT A.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
7
Examiner Affirmed
6
(85.7%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(14.3%)
Reversal Percentile
25.9%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 14.3% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
22
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(9.1%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
20
(90.9%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
13.0%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 9.1% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner WAX, ROBERT A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner WAX, ROBERT A works in Art Unit 1615 and has examined 81 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 9.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner WAX, ROBERT A's allowance rate of 9.9% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by WAX, ROBERT A receive 1.95 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by WAX, ROBERT A is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 25% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +13.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WAX, ROBERT A. This interview benefit is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 6.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 22.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 53% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 30.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 84.6% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 86% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 1.2% of allowed cases (in the 69% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.