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
18915035EFFICIENT SYNTHESIS AND ASSEMBLY METHOD FOR LARGE FRAGMENT DNA BASED ON PROGRAMMABLE NUCLEASE ARGONAUTEOctober 2024April 2025Allow610NoNo
18715637RECOMBINANT COLLAGEN AND PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOFMay 2024May 2025Allow1210YesNo
18493307SYNTHETIC GENOMEOctober 2023April 2025Allow1830NoNo
18332464GUIDE RNA WITH CHEMICAL MODIFICATIONSJune 2023January 2025Abandon1921NoNo
18321475SYNTHETIC GENOMEMay 2023October 2024Abandon1621NoNo
18037065Fluorescent Fusion Based Heterologous Peptide ProductionMay 2023August 2024Allow1520YesNo
18168357COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING CIRCULAR POLYRIBONUCLEOTIDESFebruary 2023February 2025Allow2440YesNo
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
17355638TUNNELING NANOTUBE CELLS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR DELIVERY OF BIOMOLECULESJune 2021February 2025Abandon4440NoNo
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
17042170GENETIC SCREENING METHOD OF NEGATIVE REGULATORY FACTORS OF STREPTOMYCES BIOSYNTHESIS GENE CLUSTERSeptember 2020March 2025Abandon5330NoNo
16073005MEANS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING TRANSFORMED CELLSAugust 2020October 2024Abandon6021NoNo
16535565ALTERNATIVE NUCLEOTIDE FLOWS IN SEQUENCING-BY-SYNTHESIS METHODSAugust 2019February 2025Allow6050NoNo
16238386NEGATIVE SELECTION AND STRINGENCY MODULATION IN CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION SYSTEMSJanuary 2019April 2025Allow6021NoNo

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 RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES works in Art Unit 1635 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 42.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES's allowance rate of 42.1% places them in the 4% 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 2.84 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 93% 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 44 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 +24.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES. This interview benefit is in the 74% 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, 12.5% 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 37.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% 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.

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.