USPTO Examiner KONOPKA CATHERINE ANNE - Art Unit 1635

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19054630COMPOSITIONS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR REGULATION OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS THROUGH TARGETED GENE REPRESSIONFebruary 2025April 2025Allow200YesNo
19007236COMPOSITIONS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR REGULATION OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS THROUGH TARGETED GENE REPRESSIONDecember 2024March 2025Allow300YesNo
18755750CRISPR-CAS13 SYSTEM AND USE THEREOFJune 2024January 2025Allow710YesNo
18406053COMBINATORIAL TARGETED THERAPY METHODSJanuary 2024February 2025Allow1320YesNo
18543827MODIFIED NUCLEIC ACIDS, HYBRID GUIDE RNAS, AND USES THEREOFDecember 2023February 2025Allow1410YesNo
18537662Allosteric Conditional Guide RNAs for Cell-Selective Regulation of CRISPR/CasDecember 2023April 2025Allow1610YesNo
18520878SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TARGETED INTEGRATION AND GENOME EDITING AND DETECTION THEREOF USING INTEGRATED PRIMING SITESNovember 2023March 2025Abandon1601NoNo
18467297METHOD FOR PRODUCING DNA-EDITED EUKARYOTIC CELL, AND KIT USED IN THE SAMESeptember 2023April 2025Allow1920NoNo
18452508COMPOSITIONS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR REGULATION OF HEPATITIS B VIRUS THROUGH TARGETED GENE REPRESSIONAugust 2023November 2024Allow1520YesNo
18219524BIOCONTAINMENT/BIOCONTROL SYSTEM AND METHODSJuly 2023May 2025Allow2200YesNo
18345653GENE EDITINGJune 2023June 2025Abandon2410NoNo
18166746A HTP PLATFORM FOR THE GENETIC ENGINEERING OF CHINESE HAMSTER OVARY CELLSFebruary 2023June 2025Abandon2810NoNo
18104640METHODS AND KITS FOR IDENTIFYING CANCER TREATMENT TARGETSFebruary 2023December 2024Allow2310NoNo
18064011METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTIONDecember 2022December 2024Abandon2401NoNo
18054538METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA-DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTIONNovember 2022December 2024Abandon2501NoNo
17931018RNA GUIDED COMPOSITIONS FOR PREVENTING AND TREATING HEPATITIS B VIRUS INFECTIONSSeptember 2022March 2025Abandon3010NoNo
17750116ALTERING MICROBIAL POPULATIONS & MODIFYING MICROBIOTAMay 2022April 2025Abandon3540YesYes
17749017RNA-GUIDED NUCLEIC ACID MODIFYING ENZYMES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFMay 2022November 2024Allow3010YesNo
17744475COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF TREATMENT FOR LYTIC AND LYSOGENIC VIRUSESMay 2022May 2025Abandon3611NoNo
17639043MODIFIED BACTERIAL RETROELEMENT WITH ENHANCED DNA PRODUCTIONFebruary 2022January 2025Abandon3410NoNo
17559860METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA-DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTIONDecember 2021November 2024Allow3410NoNo
17514893METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA-DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTIONOctober 2021June 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17605214TAILORED HYPOIMMUNE NANOVESICULAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR CANCER TUMORSOctober 2021March 2025Allow4110YesNo
17433927COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING LAMINOPATHIESAugust 2021April 2025Allow4310YesNo
17388321TYPE V CRISPR/CAS EFFECTOR PROTEINS FOR CLEAVING SSDNAS AND DETECTING TARGET DNASJuly 2021February 2025Allow4220NoNo
17348619METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA-DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTIONJune 2021August 2024Allow3810YesNo
17348596METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR RNA-DIRECTED TARGET DNA MODIFICATION AND FOR RNA-DIRECTED MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPTIONJune 2021August 2024Allow3810YesNo
17294175CRISPR/CAS12J ENZYME AND SYSTEMMay 2021June 2025Allow4911YesNo
17246081CRISPR/CAS-RELATED METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING CYSTIC FIBROSISApril 2021February 2025Abandon4611NoNo
17284660METHODS AND KITS FOR IDENTIFYING CANCER TREATMENT TARGETSApril 2021February 2025Allow4611YesNo
17269958BIOMARKER FOR MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS/CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (ME/CFS)February 2021February 2025Abandon4820NoNo
16999649CLEAVAGE-RESISTANT DONOR NUCLEIC ACIDS AND METHODS OF USEAugust 2020November 2024Abandon5141NoNo
16913299RNA-GUIDED DNA INTEGRATION USING TN7-LIKE TRANSPOSONSJune 2020February 2025Allow5510YesNo
16865129COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING DIVERSITY AT TARGETED NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCESMay 2020March 2025Abandon5961YesNo
16644445METHODS FOR IMPROVED HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION AND COMPOSITIONS THEREOFMarch 2020February 2025Abandon5921NoNo
16698276METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR MODIFYING A SINGLE STRANDED TARGET NUCLEIC ACIDNovember 2019December 2024Abandon6030YesNo
16463883GENOME EDITING METHODOctober 2019January 2025Abandon6060NoNo
16603377Compounds for Increasing Genome Editing EfficiencyOctober 2019August 2024Allow5841YesNo
16486799GENE EDITING THERAPY FOR HIV INFECTION VIA DUAL TARGETING OF HIV GENOME AND CCR5August 2019April 2025Abandon6042NoYes
16482294Methods for Increasing Efficiency of Gene Editing in CellsJuly 2019April 2025Allow6061YesNo
16469098COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CRISPR-BASED SCREENINGJune 2019March 2025Abandon6021NoNo
16417499Methods for mitochondria and organelle genome editingMay 2019February 2025Abandon6041NoNo
16343987MODULAR EXTRACELLULAR SENSOR ARCHITECTURE FOR REGULATING GENESApril 2019May 2025Allow6061YesNo
16341025NANOPARTICLES FUNCTIONALIZED WITH GENE EDITING TOOLS AND RELATED METHODSApril 2019November 2024Abandon6041NoNo
16326908SINGLE GUIDE RNA/CRISPR/CAS9 SYSTEMS, AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFFebruary 2019November 2024Abandon6031NoNo
16100040METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR ATTENUATING GENE EXPRESSION MODULATING ANTI-VIRAL TRANSFER VECTOR IMMUNE RESPONSESAugust 2018January 2025Abandon6031NoYes
16040204METHYLENE-TETRAHYDROFOLATE REDUCTASE ISOFORM-BASED BIOMARKER AND METHOD OF USE THEREOFJuly 2018September 2024Allow6051YesNo
15769180EXPRESSION IN MAMMALIAN CELLS WITH GAUSSIA LUCIFERASE SIGNAL PEPTIDEApril 2018August 2024Allow6081YesNo
15335139NUCLEIC ACID ENRICHMENT USING CAS9October 2016May 2025Abandon6091NoYes
14897213ANALYSIS OF POLYNUCLEOTIDESDecember 2015June 2025Allow60101YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
0.4%
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
6
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
6
(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 KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE works in Art Unit 1635 and has examined 46 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 47.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE's allowance rate of 47.8% places them in the 6% 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 KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE receive 2.59 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 2% 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 +69.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KONOPKA, CATHERINE ANNE. 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, 9.1% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 25% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 11% 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 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 59% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

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 9.1% of allowed cases (in the 87% 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.
  • 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 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.