USPTO Examiner ABUZEINEH HANAN ISAM - Art Unit 1633

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17135890USE OF ZC3H12B GENE OR PROTEIN AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING ANIMAL MODEL OF LIVER DISEASEDecember 2020January 2025Allow4811NoNo
15734605THERAPEUTIC DOSAGE REGIMENS COMPRISING ADHERENT STROMAL CELLSDecember 2020June 2024Abandon4210NoNo
17102269METHODS FOR PREPARING PLATELET PRODUCTSNovember 2020October 2023Abandon3410NoNo
17096138PRODUCTION OF ENGINEERED T-CELLS BY SLEEPING BEAUTY TRANSPOSON COUPLED WITH METHOTREXATE SELECTIONNovember 2020November 2024Allow4820YesNo
16967074NOVEL RECOMBINANT PLASMA MEMBRANE-BASED VESICLE, FOR TREATING CANCERAugust 2020March 2025Allow5621NoNo
16966204METHODS OF TREATING OPTIC NERVE DISEASES USING NEURAL PROGENITOR CELL GROWTH FACTORSJuly 2020October 2024Allow5122YesNo
16927924SYSTEM AND METHODS RELATING TO CHIMERIC AUTOANTIBODY RECEPTORSJuly 2020June 2025Allow5921YesNo
16651200FACTOR VIII OR FACTOR IX GENE KNOCKOUT RABBIT, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME AND USE THEREOFJuly 2020April 2024Abandon4901NoNo
16961130PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING OR TREATING MUSCULAR DISEASE OR CACHEXIA COMPRISING, AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT, miRNA LOCATED IN DLK1-DIO3 CLUSTER OR VARIANT THEREOFJuly 2020March 2024Abandon4420NoNo
16960370BIDIRECTIONAL CHEF1 VECTORSJuly 2020June 2025Abandon6030NoNo
16649417METHOD FOR PRODUCING NATURAL KILLER CELL AND USE THEREOFJuly 2020May 2025Allow6050YesNo
16907748LIPIN-1 AS A NOVEL THERAPY TARGET OF MUSCULAR DYSTROPHYJune 2020May 2024Allow4631YesNo
16955647NOVEL MULTI-ORGAN-CHIPS ESTABLISHING DIFFERENTIATION OF IPSC-DERIVED CELLS INTO ORGAN EQUIVALENTSJune 2020June 2024Abandon4821NoNo
15929408TARGETING PEPTIDE TO DELIVER A COMPOUND TO OOCYTESApril 2020April 2025Allow6021YesNo
16760902ENGINEERED NUCLEASES THAT TARGET HUMAN AND CANINE FACTOR VIII GENES AS A TREATMENT FOR HEMOPHILIA AApril 2020February 2024Abandon4611NoNo
16760630MEDICINE FOR TISSUE REGENERATION, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFORApril 2020October 2024Abandon5440YesNo
16759263METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING CD33+ CANCERS AND IMPROVING IN VIVO PERSISTENCE OF CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR T CELLSApril 2020March 2024Allow4721YesNo
16757198METHODS AND COMPOUNDS FOR IMPROVED IMMUNE CELL THERAPYApril 2020February 2024Allow4621NoNo
16755862ENHANCED REPROGRAMMING OF SOMATIC CELLSApril 2020August 2023Abandon4001NoNo
16839031System and Method for the Production, Formulation and Use of Conditioned Media, Cultured Cells and the Factors Included ThereinApril 2020June 2025Allow6041NoNo
16649084CELLULAR REPROGRAMMING USING TEMPORAL AND TRANSIENT PLASMID VECTOR EXPRESSION SYSTEMMarch 2020November 2024Allow5631YesNo
16793600In Vitro Fertilization Media with Antiviral MedicineFebruary 2020October 2023Abandon4310NoNo
16636153GENERATION OF OLIGODENDROGENIC NEURAL PROGENITOR CELLSFebruary 2020August 2023Allow4211NoNo
16632741A VIRUS FOR TREATMENT OF TUMORJanuary 2020June 2023Allow4111YesNo
16629169MODULATING BIOMARKERS TO INCREASE TUMOR IMMUNITY AND IMPROVE THE EFFICACY OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPYJanuary 2020June 2025Abandon6022NoNo
16727647DIET CONTROLLED EXPRESSION OF A NUCLEIC ACID ENCODING A PRO-APOPTOTIC PROTEINDecember 2019May 2025Allow6050NoNo
16711409METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR EFFICIENT AND PRECISE GENE EDITING IN MAMMALIAN BRAIN TO PREVENT OR TREAT NERVOUS SYSTEM DISORDERSDecember 2019March 2024Abandon5110NoNo
16619570T-CELLS MODIFIED TO OVEREXPRESS PHF19December 2019August 2023Allow4511YesNo
16604596RESPIRATORY AND SWEAT GLAND IONOCYTESOctober 2019October 2024Allow6031YesNo
16517342Selection and Cloning of T Lymphocytes in a Microfluidic DeviceJuly 2019November 2023Abandon5221NoNo
16476323THREE-DIMENSIONAL TUMOR MODELS, METHODS OF MANUFACTURING SAME AND USES THEREOFJuly 2019June 2025Allow6041YesNo
16470951PEPTIDE FOR TREATING AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATIONJune 2019May 2024Abandon5922NoNo
16320075IMMUNOMODULATORY POLYPEPTIDES AND RELATED COMPOSITIONS AND METHODSJanuary 2019January 2025Allow6051NoYes
15623828TARGETED CARRIERS FOR INTRACELLULAR DRUG DELIVERYJune 2017November 2023Abandon6071YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
0.3%
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, 0.0% 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

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

Examiner ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM works in Art Unit 1633 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM's allowance rate of 55.9% places them in the 18% 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 ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM receive 2.32 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 +50.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ABUZEINEH, HANAN ISAM. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 55% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 18.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 93% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 86% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 100.0% 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 1% 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 10.5% of allowed cases (in the 90% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • 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.