USPTO Examiner BABIC CHRISTOPHER M - Art Unit 1633

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17092999Methods of Preserving Blood Samples for Mass Screening to Detect at-Risk Individuals for Autoimmune DiseasesNovember 2020December 2023Abandon3701NoNo
16977403CULTURE SYSTEM FOR CHEMICALLY INDUCING GENERATION OF PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS AND CHEMICAL REPROGRAMMING METHOD USING SAMESeptember 2020December 2023Abandon4010NoNo
16922981POINT-OF-CARE AND/OR PORTABLE PLATFORM FOR GENE THERAPYJuly 2020October 2023Abandon3910NoNo
16844723METHODS FOR NUCLEAR REPROGRAMMING USING SYNTHETIC TRANSCRIPTION FACTORSApril 2020February 2023Allow3410YesNo
16651918IN VITRO METHOD OF MRNA DELIVERY USING LIPID NANOPARTICLESMarch 2020May 2025Abandon6041YesNo
16647242OSTEOINDUCTIVE PEPTIDES, COMPOSITIONS, IMPLANTS, AND METHODS OF USEMarch 2020October 2023Abandon4301NoNo
16645561New Therapy for Pompe DiseaseMarch 2020December 2023Abandon4611NoNo
16746205LIPID-BASED COMPOSITIONS OF ANTIINFECTIVES FOR TREATING PULMONARY INFECTIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFJanuary 2020April 2023Abandon3910NoNo
16730951METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR TARGETING CANCER CELLSDecember 2019July 2023Abandon4300NoNo
16625064CELL REPROGRAMMING METHODS FOR PRODUCING CHONDROCYTESDecember 2019August 2023Abandon4401NoNo
16076443COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING AND TREATING ARTHRITIS, INCLUDING DNA FRAGMENT MIXTURE AND MATRIX METALLOPROTEINASE PRODUCTION INHIBITORAugust 2019May 2021Abandon3330NoNo
16483876NOVEL T-CELL RECEPTORAugust 2019October 2022Allow3811YesNo
16464012H-1 PV EXPRESSING RNAI EFFECTORS TARGETING CDK9May 2019April 2023Abandon4620NoNo
16347327REMOTE CONTROL OF LIGHT-TRIGGERED VIROTHERAPYMay 2019February 2025Abandon6040NoNo
16292922METHODS OF CONTROLLING RED BLOOD CELL PRODUCTIONMarch 2019October 2023Abandon5531NoNo
16278336Compositions and Methods for Cancer ImmunotherapyFebruary 2019December 2019Abandon1000NoNo
16320186TREATING CANCERJanuary 2019May 2023Abandon5141NoNo
16319749Compositions and Methods for Inhibiting Stem Cell AgingJanuary 2019January 2023Abandon4721NoNo
16319791SPATIOTEMPORAL REGULATORSJanuary 2019January 2023Abandon4830NoNo
16315032ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS VIRIONS WITH VARIANT CAPSID AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFJanuary 2019September 2022Allow4411YesNo
16205277PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTION OR TREATMENT OF PULMONARY DISEASE INCLUDING MESENCHYMAL STEM CELL-DERIVED ARTIFICIAL NANOSOMESNovember 2018December 2022Abandon4840NoNo
16185055MESENCHYMAL STEM CELL THERAPY FOR SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHYNovember 2018January 2022Abandon3820NoNo
16088570METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ALSSeptember 2018June 2023Abandon5740YesNo
16036368METHOD OF PRODUCING UNDENATURED COLLAGEN FROM CARTILAGE WITH LOW TEMPERATURE HYDROLYSISJuly 2018July 2023Abandon6030NoYes
16061982COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR REGULATABLE ANTIBODY EXPRESSIONJune 2018June 2025Abandon6061NoYes
15772023REGULATABLE EXPRESSION USING ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS (AAV)April 2018April 2022Abandon4821NoYes
15767313STABILIZED ANTI-CANCER COLD ATMOSPHERIC PLASMA (CAP)-STIMULATED MEDIA AND METHODS FOR PREPARING AND USING THE SAMEApril 2018January 2022Abandon4621NoNo
15835957DELIVERY OF TARGET SPECIFIC NUCLEASESDecember 2017November 2024Abandon6071NoYes
15597063COMPOSITIONS FOR THE DELIVERY OF TRNA AS NANOPARTICLES AND METHODS OF USE THEREWITHMay 2017June 2023Abandon6071YesYes
15351017Scaffold Delivery of Immune Suppressors and Transplant Material for Control of Transplant RejectionNovember 2016January 2019Abandon2610NoNo
15336783METHOD OF DIFFERENTIATING MAMMALIAN PROGENITOR CELLS INTO INSULIN PRODUCING PANCREATIC ISLET CELLSOctober 2016December 2018Abandon2510NoNo
15220914METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR GENE INACTIVATIONJuly 2016August 2019Abandon3710NoNo
15189914CO-CULTURE OF PLACENTAL CELLS AND STEM CELLS FROM A SECOND SOURCEJune 2016October 2019Abandon3920YesYes
15188264TRANSGENIC ANIMAL MODEL OF MOOD DISORDERSJune 2016December 2018Abandon3020NoNo
15052487CONDITIONALLY ACTIVE CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS FOR MODIFIED T-CELLSFebruary 2016August 2019Abandon4221YesNo
14997121CELLS HAVING DISRUPTED EXPRESSION OF PROTEINS INVOLVED IN ADME AND TOXICOLOGY PROCESSESJanuary 2016December 2018Abandon3522NoNo
14993194TRANSPLANTATION OF CELLS INTO THE NASAL CAVITY AND THE SUBARACHNOID CRANIAL SPACEJanuary 2016April 2018Abandon2830NoNo
14892547MULTICOLOR FLOW CYTOMETRY METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING A POPULATION OF CELLS, IN PARTICULAR MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLSNovember 2015March 2019Abandon4051NoNo
14935371MULTI-STEP METHOD FOR FABRICATING TISSUE ENGINEERING BONENovember 2015October 2018Abandon3610NoNo
14616167POST-PARTUM MAMMALIAN PLACENTA, ITS USE AND PLACENTAL STEM CELLS THEREFROMFebruary 2015March 2019Abandon5040NoYes
14417823INTRATHECAL DELIVERY OF RECOMBINANT ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS 9January 2015August 2018Abandon4231YesYes
14536603MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR MAKING A RECESSIVE GENE DOMINANTNovember 2014April 2019Abandon5341NoYes
14508610Methods And Compositions Comprising A Drosophila Model Of Amyotrophic Lateral SclerosisOctober 2014July 2018Abandon4541NoNo
14263158Transgenic Non-Human Assay Vertebrates, Assays and KitsApril 2014February 2019Abandon5731YesNo
14351481CHIMERIC NON-HUMAN ANIMAL CARRYING HUMAN HEPATOCYTEApril 2014October 2015Allow1920NoNo
10897592RAPID IDENTIFICATION OF BACTERIA FROM POSITIVE BLOOD CULTURESJuly 2004November 2006Allow2820NoNo
10481943GEDAP METHOD (GENOTYPING BASED ON DIAGNOSTIC AMPLIFICATION PRODUCTS) FOR DETECTING AND/OR PREVENTING GENOTYPING ERRORS FROM AMPLIFICATION PRODUCTS OF A POLYMORPHIC FOCUSApril 2004March 2008Allow5120NoNo
10486645ISOTHERMAL CHIMERIC PRIMER NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION METHODS USING BLOCKING OGLIONUCLEOTIDEFebruary 2004September 2005Allow1910YesNo
10636509ORIENTATION-DIRECTED CONSTRUCTION OF PLASMIDSAugust 2003May 2007Allow4510NoNo
10302098POLYNUCLEOTIDE THERAPYNovember 2002January 2009Allow6041NoNo
10294191NOVEL GHRELIN ALLELES AND USE OF THE SAME FOR GENETICALLY TYPING ANIMALSNovember 2002January 2006Allow3811YesNo
09961089PREFERENTIAL DISPLAYSeptember 2001April 2004Allow3130YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
0.5%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
9
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
9
(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

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 BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M works in Art Unit 1633 and has examined 52 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 21.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M's allowance rate of 21.2% places them in the 3% 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 BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M receive 2.37 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 64% 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 BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 16% 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 +33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BABIC, CHRISTOPHER M. This interview benefit is in the 80% 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, 4.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 10.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 11% 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, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 1% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. 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, 123.1% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 95% 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 7.7% of allowed cases (in the 91% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 2% 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.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.