USPTO Examiner RYAN DOUGLAS CHARLES - Art Unit 1635

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19011407Novel CRISPR-Cas sigma enzyme and systemJanuary 2025January 2026Allow1230NoNo
18957819TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR NCGL0581 MUTANT AND USE THEREOF IN L-SERINE DETECTIONNovember 2024July 2025Allow720YesNo
18915035EFFICIENT SYNTHESIS AND ASSEMBLY METHOD FOR LARGE FRAGMENT DNA BASED ON PROGRAMMABLE NUCLEASE ARGONAUTEOctober 2024April 2025Allow610NoNo
18781640RNA-GUIDED NUCLEASES AND ACTIVE FRAGMENTS AND VARIANTS THEREOF AND METHODS OF USEJuly 2024July 2025Allow1211NoNo
18715637RECOMBINANT COLLAGEN AND PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOFMay 2024May 2025Allow1210YesNo
18620640A METHOD FOR THE ISOLATION OF DOUBLE-STRAND BREAKSMarch 2024July 2025Allow1521NoNo
18620644METHOD FOR THE ISOLATION OF DOUBLE-STRAND BREAKSMarch 2024July 2025Allow1520NoNo
18493307SYNTHETIC GENOMEOctober 2023April 2025Allow1830NoNo
18332464GUIDE RNA WITH CHEMICAL MODIFICATIONSJune 2023January 2025Abandon1921NoNo
18321475SYNTHETIC GENOMEMay 2023October 2024Abandon1621NoNo
18037065Fluorescent Fusion Based Heterologous Peptide ProductionMay 2023August 2024Allow1520YesNo
18025663METHODS FOR ENGINEERING CHROMOSOMAL ARCHITECTURE FOR GENE EXPRESSIONMarch 2023March 2026Abandon3610NoNo
18168357COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING CIRCULAR POLYRIBONUCLEOTIDESFebruary 2023February 2025Allow2440YesNo
17618859TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF DISEASE MEDIATED BY WWP2December 2021March 2026Abandon5111NoNo
17542108COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR RECOMBINANT NERVE GROWTH FACTORDecember 2021October 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17610974SYNTHETIC GENOMENovember 2021May 2025Allow4320NoNo
17501421HIGH-EFFICACY CRISPRI SYSTEM AND STRONG SYNTHETIC PROMOTERS FOR ALPHAPROTEOBACTERIA AND GAMMAPROTEOBACTERIAOctober 2021March 2025Allow4141YesNo
17440777FUSION PROTEIN FOR ENHANCING GENE EDITING AND USE THEREOFSeptember 2021February 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17464691Novel tracrRNA system for Cas9September 2021April 2025Abandon4451YesNo
17382945METHODS FOR NOMINATION OF NUCLEASE ON-/OFF-TARGET EDITING LOCATIONS, DESIGNATED "CTL-seq" (CRISPR Tag Linear-seq)July 2021May 2025Abandon4641YesNo
17251975Method for Producing SelenoneineJuly 2021January 2025Allow4920NoNo
17368369NON-TOXIC CAS9 ENZYME AND APPLICATION THEREOFJuly 2021April 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17355608APOPTOSIS RESISTANT CELL LINESJune 2021October 2025Abandon5250NoNo
17355638TUNNELING NANOTUBE CELLS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR DELIVERY OF BIOMOLECULESJune 2021February 2025Abandon4440NoNo
17344590ANIMAL CELL, METHOD FOR PRODUCING ANIMAL CELL, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING TARGET PROTEINJune 2021September 2025Abandon5230YesNo
17214839Method For Creating Reference Cell Lines With Simultaneous Genetic Variants And Accurate Quantification Of Alelle FrequencyMarch 2021January 2025Abandon4531NoNo
17203129NATURAL GUIDE ARCHITECTURES AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAMEMarch 2021February 2025Abandon4731NoNo
17053629DIFFERENTIAL KNOCKOUT OF AN ALLELE OF A HETEROZYGOUS ELANE GENENovember 2020July 2025Allow5711YesNo
17090766SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLANT GENOME EDITING USING CAS 12a ORTHOLOGSNovember 2020November 2025Allow6051YesNo
17042170GENETIC SCREENING METHOD OF NEGATIVE REGULATORY FACTORS OF STREPTOMYCES BIOSYNTHESIS GENE CLUSTERSeptember 2020March 2025Abandon5330NoNo
17012359ORGANISMS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING GLYCOMOLECULES WITH LOW SULFATIONSeptember 2020July 2025Abandon5820NoNo
16073005MEANS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING TRANSFORMED CELLSAugust 2020October 2024Abandon6021NoNo
16535565ALTERNATIVE NUCLEOTIDE FLOWS IN SEQUENCING-BY-SYNTHESIS METHODSAugust 2019February 2025Allow6050NoNo
16471680METHODS FOR INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF HOMOLOGY DIRECTED REPAIR (HDR) IN THE CELLULAR GENOMEJune 2019March 2026Abandon6040NoYes
16238386NEGATIVE SELECTION AND STRINGENCY MODULATION IN CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION SYSTEMSJanuary 2019April 2025Allow6021NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES.

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
0.6%
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 RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES works in Art Unit 1635 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 31.8%, 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 RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES's allowance rate of 31.8% places them in the 5% 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 RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES receive 2.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 83% 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 RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 4% 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 +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 9.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 42.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

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.
  • 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.