USPTO Examiner TIWARI VYOMA SHUBHAM - Art Unit 1634

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18731209REAGENTS, REAGENT KITS, AND CULTURE MEDIA FOR ACTIVATING AND EXPANDING IMMUNE CELLS AND USES THEREOFMay 2024May 2025Allow1221YesNo
18414374CHEMOPREDICTIVE ASSAY FOR RECURRENT CHEMOTHERAPYJanuary 2024March 2025Abandon1410NoNo
18485458ACELLULAR COMPOSITIONS AND METHODSOctober 2023March 2025Abandon1710NoNo
17608935METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS USING AUXOTROPHIC REGULATABLE CELLSNovember 2021May 2025Abandon4210NoNo
17405735CYTOPROTECTIVE COMPOSITIONS FOR SHORT-TERM CELLS STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT CRYOPRESERVATION AND DEEP FREEZINGAugust 2021June 2025Allow4631YesNo
17364646AUGMENTATION OF NATURAL KILLER CELL ACTIVITY AND INDUCTION OF CYTOTOXIC IMMUNITY USING LEUKOCYTE LYSATE ACTIVATED ALLOGENEIC DENDRITIC CELLS: STEMVACSJune 2021March 2025Abandon4421NoNo
17297897FOXP1-ABLATED CHIMERIC CELLSMay 2021April 2025Abandon4720NoNo
17293835METHOD FOR CULTURING CORD BLOOD-DERIVED NATURAL KILLER CELLS USING TRANSFORMED T-CELLSMay 2021February 2025Allow4510YesNo
17281919COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MULTIPLEXED QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CELL LINEAGESMarch 2021December 2024Abandon4401NoNo
17269612COMBINATION OF NATURAL KILLER CELLS WITH CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE COMPOUNDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCERFebruary 2021April 2025Abandon4920YesNo
17094935LAYERED BODYNovember 2020October 2024Abandon4721YesNo
17042030METHODS OF TREATING EGFRVIII EXPRESSING GLIOBLASTOMASSeptember 2020August 2024Allow4720YesNo
16969854METHOD FOR GENERATING CELLS OF THE T CELL LINEAGEAugust 2020March 2025Allow5531YesNo
16969278GENE THERAPY OF THE FAAH PSEUDOGENEAugust 2020October 2024Allow5130YesNo
16964277EXTENDED SINGLE GUIDE RNA AND USE THEREOFJuly 2020April 2025Allow5751YesNo
16962877DISRUPTING THE LINC COMPLEX FOR TREATING LAMINOPATHYJuly 2020March 2025Allow5640YesNo
16925174COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISEASESJuly 2020January 2023Allow3040NoNo
16770767METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR DETECTING AND PROMOTING CARDIOLIPIN REMODELING AND CARDIOMYOCYTE MATURATION AND RELATED METHODS OF TREATING MITOCHONDRIAL DYSFUNCTIONJune 2020April 2025Abandon5822NoNo
16755453Expression Cassette for Production of High-Expression and High-Functionality Target Protein and Use ThereofApril 2020September 2024Allow5321YesNo
16639836CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS THAT TARGET MOLECULES ON DISEASE-ASSOCIATED MACROPHAGES AND METHODS RELATED THERERTO, AND TREATMENT OF FIBROTIC, INFLAMMATORY AND AUTOIMMUNE CONDITIONSFebruary 2020February 2025Allow6031YesNo
160813403-D COLLAGEN SCAFFOLD-GENERATED EXOSOMES AND USES THEREOFAugust 2018March 2025Abandon6070NoNo
16059156DELIVERY DEVICE AND USE THEREOF FOR LOADING CELL PLASMA MEMBRANESAugust 2018December 2024Abandon6051NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner TIWARI, VYOMA SHUBHAM - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner TIWARI, VYOMA SHUBHAM works in Art Unit 1634 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner TIWARI, VYOMA SHUBHAM's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 7% 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 TIWARI, VYOMA SHUBHAM receive 2.70 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 90% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by TIWARI, VYOMA SHUBHAM is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 1% 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 +70.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TIWARI, VYOMA SHUBHAM. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 23.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 23% 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 16.7% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 1% 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.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.

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.