USPTO Examiner CRAIG KAILA ANGELIQUE - Art Unit 1618

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18776861PEPTIDE-UREA DERIVATIVE, PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAME AND APPLICATION THEREOFJuly 2024June 2025Allow1121YesNo
18770529RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION AND METHODSJuly 2024February 2025Allow711NoNo
18070994Temporary Wrinkle SoftenerNovember 2022February 2025Abandon2630YesNo
17981502TOOTHPASTE CAPSULENovember 2022April 2024Abandon1810NoNo
17944620Jammed Emulsion Toothpaste CompositionsSeptember 2022June 2025Allow3340NoYes
17595709SURFACTANT MICROBUBBLES COMPOSITIONS AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THEREOFNovember 2021May 2024Allow3010NoNo
17612953METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR INHIBITING GAPDHNovember 2021August 2024Abandon3310NoNo
176121233,5-BIS(PHENYL)-1H-HETEROARYL DERIVATIVES AS MEDICAMENTSNovember 2021April 2025Abandon4130NoNo
17502010MICROBUBBLE DISPERSION SYSTEM STABILIZED WITH POLYDOPAMINE NANOPARTICLES FOR HIGHLY-EFFICIENT INTRAVENOUS OXYGEN SUPPLY AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAMEOctober 2021February 2025Allow4010NoNo
17450264COXIB-DERIVED CONJUGATE COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4311NoNo
17488810COMPOUNDS FOR POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHYSeptember 2021July 2024Allow3320NoNo
17437380COMPOSITION FOR MEASURING MEDICATION COMPLIANCE AND METHOD THEREOFSeptember 2021February 2025Abandon4101NoNo
17310759COMBINATION OF AR ANTAGONISTS AND TARGETED THORIUM CONJUGATESAugust 2021June 2024Abandon3410NoNo
17432039HIPK INHIBITORS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4101NoNo
17402092ANALYTE-SENSITIVE PROBES AND CONTACT LENS FOR DIAGNOSIS OF OCULAR PATHOLOGIESAugust 2021September 2024Abandon3710NoNo
17310604Targeted Radiopharmaceutical for Tumor and Its Use in the Imaging-guided Combination Therapy of Targeted Radiotherapy and ImmunotherapyAugust 2021March 2025Allow4320NoNo
17430263NEUROTRANSMITTER-BASED BRAIN MAPPING METHOD AND USE OF BRAIN MAPAugust 2021December 2024Abandon4001NoNo
17428732TREATMENT EFFICIENCY EVALUATIONAugust 2021July 2025Abandon4720NoNo
17426962PSMA BINDING DUAL MODE RADIOTRACER AND THERAPEUTICJuly 2021March 2025Allow4411NoNo
17427006CANCER DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING AGENTSJuly 2021May 2025Allow4621YesNo
17387258Transition Metal Macrocyclics as MRI Contrast Agents for Molecular ImagingJuly 2021June 2024Abandon3420NoNo
17424973NON-HUMAN ANIMAL MODELS OF S�ZARY SYNDROMEJuly 2021October 2024Abandon3901NoNo
17423526Compound Targeting Norepinephrine TransporterJuly 2021March 2025Allow4421YesNo
17422211GRAPHENE QUANTUM DOTS-GADOLINIUM ION CHELATE AS MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING CONTRAST AGENT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOFJuly 2021December 2024Allow4111YesNo
17421995COMPOSITION FOR TARGETING MEDULLARY THYROID CANCERJuly 2021January 2025Abandon4301NoNo
17421239MODULATORS OF METABOTROPIC GLUTAMATE RECEPTOR 4July 2021November 2024Abandon4001NoNo
17420671RADIOTHERAPEUTIC COMBINATION THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCERJuly 2021November 2024Abandon4010NoNo
17420666MOLECULAR RENAL PROBES FOR DETECTING ACUTE KIDNEY INJURYJuly 2021January 2025Allow4211NoNo
17420218Prediction and/or Determination Marker for Effectiveness of Treatment with Drug Containing PD-1 Signal InhibitorJuly 2021March 2025Abandon4520NoNo
17419649MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING DRUG CONTAINING A DEUTERATED NATURAL BRANCHED-CHAIN AMINO ACID, AND DIAGNOSTIC METHOD USING SAID DRUGJune 2021June 2025Abandon4721NoNo
17419381Methods for Treating Cancer Using Combinations of PARP Inhibitors and Antibody RadioconjugatesJune 2021February 2025Abandon4320NoNo
17312949RADIOACTIVE I-LABELED LAROTRECTINIB COMPOUND AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOFJune 2021July 2024Allow3701YesNo
17327551PYRIMIDINE DERIVATIVES FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF GRAM-NEGATIVE BACTERIAL INFECTION, CONTAMINATION AND FOULINGMay 2021December 2024Allow4320NoNo
17294187BENZAZEPIN-L,7-DIOL-DERIVED RADIOLABELED LIGANDS WITH HIGH IN VIVO NMDA SPECIFICITYMay 2021May 2025Abandon4820NoNo
17293455RADIOLABELED BOMBESIN-DERIVED COMPOUNDS FOR IN VIVO IMAGING OF GASTRIN-RELEASING PEPTIDE RECEPTOR (GRPR) AND TREATMENT OF GRPR-RELATED DISORDERSMay 2021September 2024Abandon4010NoNo
17285775Phospholipid-Free Small Unilamellar Vesicles (PFSUVS) for Drug DeliveryApril 2021May 2025Abandon4930NoNo
17283761Hybrid Tracers for Targeted Cancer Imaging and TreatmentApril 2021May 2025Allow5030NoNo
17176123CEST-MRI Methods for Detection of DiseasesFebruary 2021October 2024Abandon4401NoNo
17267175BINDNG MOLECULES TO TUMOR ASSOCIATED MACROPHAGES AND METHODS OF USEFebruary 2021June 2025Abandon5220NoYes
17052275BACTERIOPHAGE-BASED SERS-ACTIVE GOLD NANOHALO STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFORFebruary 2021September 2024Abandon4620NoNo
17266383Separation of RadiometalsFebruary 2021July 2024Abandon4101NoNo
17057624A Drug For Treating Disorders Of An Organ Or Tissue Function And Diseases Accompanied By Such Disorders, And The Method For Obtaining It.November 2020June 2025Abandon5521YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
75.6%
Higher 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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE works in Art Unit 1618 and has examined 40 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 32.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE's allowance rate of 32.5% 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 CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE receive 1.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 30% 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 CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CRAIG, KAILA ANGELIQUE. This interview benefit is in the 89% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 27.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 39% 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.

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 20% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 84% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 90% 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 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.

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.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.