Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17046243 | ENGINEERED CYTOLYTIC IMMUNECELL | October 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16645840 | ENRICHMENT OF NKX6.1 AND C-PEPTIDE CO-EXPRESSING CELLS DERIVED IN VITRO FROM STEM CELLS | March 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16636249 | PLATFORM FOR GENERATING SAFE CELL THERAPEUTICS | February 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16630872 | CELL CULTURING MATERIALS | January 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 16604680 | PLATELET VESICLE-ENGINEERED CELLS FOR TARGETED TISSUE REPAIR | October 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 16566675 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MICROGLIA REPLACEMENT THERAPY | September 2019 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16096967 | Derivation and Self-Renewal of Multipotent Cells and Uses Thereof | October 2018 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 16113813 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TISSUE | August 2018 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16072345 | IMMUNE CELL SELECTION, EXPANSION, AND USE | July 2018 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16043520 | ACELLULAR REGENERATIVE PRODUCTS AND METHODS OF THEIR MANUFACTURE | July 2018 | December 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15420901 | TISSUE-ENGINEERED CONSTRUCTS | January 2017 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CONNORS, ALEXANDRA F.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner CONNORS, ALEXANDRA F works in Art Unit 1634 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 18.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner CONNORS, ALEXANDRA F's allowance rate of 18.2% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CONNORS, ALEXANDRA F receive 4.64 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 CONNORS, ALEXANDRA F is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +10.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CONNORS, ALEXANDRA F. This interview benefit is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 26% 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.
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.
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, 50.0% 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.
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'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 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.
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.