Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19077324 | MUSCLE TARGETING COMPLEXES AND USES THEREOF FOR TREATING MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY | March 2025 | August 2025 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18660713 | HYPOIMMUNOGENIC CELL AND METHODS OF GENERATION THEREOF | May 2024 | September 2025 | Abandon | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17811048 | METHOD TO ENHANCE GENE EDITING | July 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17734157 | MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF APOLIPOPROTEIN C3 (APOCIII)-RELATED DISORDERS | May 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 45 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17684298 | CHIMERIC GENOME ENGINEERING MOLECULES AND METHODS | March 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17635536 | SPLICE MODULATING OLIGONUCLEOTIDES TARGETING RECEPTOR FOR ADVANCED GLYCATION END PRODUCTS AND METHODS OF USE | February 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 48 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17634708 | RNAI CONSTRUCTS FOR INHIBITING SLC30A8 EXPRESSION AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | February 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17529595 | REAGENTS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING INFECTIOUS DISEASES | November 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17609387 | NUCLEIC ACIDS FOR INHIBITING EXPRESSION OF PROS1 IN A CELL | November 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17606733 | TREATMENT OF AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS AND DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPINAL CORD | October 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17417436 | MYOSTATIN SIGNAL INHIBITOR | June 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17327932 | BIOMEMBRANE-COVERED NANOPARTICLES (BIONPS) FOR DELIVERING ACTIVE AGENTS TO STEM CELLS | May 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 17250945 | METABOLIC BENEFITS OF SHORT MIR-22 MIRNA ANTAGOMIR THERAPIES | March 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17265092 | Preparation of Combinatorial Libraries of DNA Constructs | February 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17103233 | CAS9 VARIANTS AND USES THEREOF | November 2020 | October 2025 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17056572 | METHODS AND COMPOUNDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF GENETIC DISEASE | November 2020 | October 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17053741 | OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR MODULATING MYH7 EXPRESSION | November 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16914769 | DNA MARKER KIT AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME | June 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16871910 | Immunostimulating-Toxic RNA In Alkaline Earth Metal Formulation | May 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16637454 | Improved Method to Analyze Nucleic Acid Contents from Multiple Biological Particles | May 2020 | October 2022 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16709607 | TREATING HERPESVIRUS-MEDIATED INTESTINAL DYSFUNCTION FOR PREVENTION OF AGE-RELATED NEURODEGENERATION | December 2019 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16471881 | IDENTIFICATION OF DRUGS TARGETING NON-GENETIC DRUG TOLERANCE PROGRAMS IN CANCER | June 2019 | July 2022 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16243926 | MULTIPLE EXON SKIPPING COMPOSITIONS FOR DMD | January 2019 | May 2021 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16310749 | COMPOUNDS AND METHODS FOR USE IN DYSTROPHIN TRANSCRIPT | December 2018 | February 2021 | Abandon | 26 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16310758 | COMPOUNDS AND METHODS FOR MODULATION OF TRANSCRIPT PROCESSING | December 2018 | February 2021 | Abandon | 26 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16146328 | MULTIPLE EXON SKIPPING COMPOSITIONS FOR DMD | September 2018 | January 2021 | Abandon | 27 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16085165 | METHODS FOR DETECTING NUCLEOTIDE VARIANTS | September 2018 | August 2022 | Abandon | 47 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 15776792 | PACKAGING MACHINE | May 2018 | December 2019 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15741317 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, PREVENTION, AND TREATMENT OF CANCER USING SLNCR ISOFORMS | January 2018 | December 2020 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15543217 | INCORPORATION OF UNNATURAL NUCLEOTIDES AND METHODS THEREOF | July 2017 | December 2020 | Abandon | 41 | 5 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 15532916 | NUCLEIC ACID COMPLEX, METHOD FOR FORMING NUCLEIC ACID HYBRIDIZATION, PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION, NUCLEIC ACID PROBE, AND COMPLEMENTARY-STRAND NUCLEIC ACID COMPLEX | June 2017 | February 2021 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15127616 | IMPROVED SMALL INTERFERING RIBONUCLEIC ACID MOLECULES | September 2016 | November 2020 | Abandon | 50 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 14957064 | TREATMENT OF INSULIN GENE (INS) RELATED DISEASES BY INHIBITION OF NATURAL ANTISENSE TRANSCRIPT TO AN INSULIN GENE (INS) | December 2015 | July 2020 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 1 | No | No |
| 14861509 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPOSITIONS RELATING TO TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL CONDITIONS, DISEASES, AND INJURIES AND COMPLICATIONS FROM DIABETES | September 2015 | December 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 3 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SHUKLA, RAM R.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner SHUKLA, RAM R works in Art Unit 1635 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 11.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner SHUKLA, RAM R's allowance rate of 11.1% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SHUKLA, RAM R receive 1.59 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SHUKLA, RAM R is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHUKLA, RAM R. This interview benefit is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 4.5% 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.
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 24% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 89% 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 1% 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.