USPTO Examiner VYAS KEYUR ANILKUMAR - Art Unit 1635

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18625829TREATMENT OF MST1 RELATED DISEASES AND DISORDERSApril 2024August 2024Abandon401YesNo
17719821COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MODULATING PNPLA3 EXPRESSIONApril 2022April 2024Allow2411NoNo
17717174COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING KETOHEXOKINASE (KHK)April 2022May 2024Abandon2511NoNo
17702978RNA-Editing Enzyme-Recruiting Oligonucleotides and Uses ThereofMarch 2022November 2023Abandon1901NoNo
17554026ANTISENSE OLIGONUCLEOTIDE AND DOUBLE STRANDED RNAS FOR CONTROL OF HEMIPTERAN AND LEPIDOPTERAN PESTSDecember 2021July 2023Allow1920YesNo
17552804Antisense Oligonucleotide for Targeting ProgranulinDecember 2021June 2024Allow3031NoNo
17643807TAU-TARGETING OLIGONUCLEOTIDE GAPMERSDecember 2021August 2023Abandon2101NoNo
17491064PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING, TREATING AND DIAGNOSING A NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASESeptember 2021August 2024Abandon3411NoNo
17401200KLF11 siRNA For Treatment Of Diabetes And ObesityAugust 2021February 2024Allow3021YesNo
17362567COMPOUNDS AND METHODS FOR MODULATING PLP1June 2021March 2023Allow2110NoNo
17336233SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COLD ATMOSPHERIC PLASMA BASED T CELL THERAPYJune 2021October 2023Abandon2810NoNo
17324690METHODS AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC MASTOCYTOSISMay 2021March 2024Abandon3411NoNo
17213294TRANSTHYRETIN (TTR) iRNA COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF FOR TREATING OR PREVENTING TTR-ASSOCIATED OCULAR DISEASESMarch 2021September 2023Abandon3011NoNo
17253484COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING OR TREATING NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASEMarch 2021February 2023Allow2610NoNo
17153276ENGINEERED INCOHERENT FEED FORWARD LOOP AND USES THEREOFJanuary 2021September 2024Abandon4431NoNo
17259366Methods for Oral Delivery of OligonucleotidesJanuary 2021July 2023Abandon3011NoNo
17145457TREATING CANCER WITH VIRAL NUCLEIC ACIDJanuary 2021April 2024Abandon3901NoNo
17139161OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR MODULATING TAU EXPRESSIONDecember 2020April 2023Allow2720NoNo
17256136METHODS FOR TREATING OR PREVENTING CONFORMATION DISEASES AND METHODS FOR DRUG SCREENINGDecember 2020August 2024Abandon4401NoNo
17127099ENHANCED OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR INHIBITING SCN9A EXPRESSIONDecember 2020June 2024Abandon4231NoNo
17253102IL-1 BETA TARGETING SPHERICAL NUCLEIC ACIDSDecember 2020June 2024Abandon4201NoNo
17056949DELIVERY OF DNANovember 2020September 2024Abandon4601NoNo
17097574RNAI TARGET GENE THAT IS HIGHLY LETHAL TO APHIDS AND USE THEREOFNovember 2020March 2024Abandon4001NoNo
17048163EXON SKIPPING OLIGOMERS AND OLIGOMER CONJUGATES FOR MUSCULAR DYSTROPHYOctober 2020May 2024Abandon4301NoNo
15733580METHOD FOR CONTROLLING PEST INFESTATIONSSeptember 2020December 2023Allow3910NoNo
16869126OLIGONUCLEOTIDE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS THEREOFMay 2020June 2023Abandon3710NoNo
16760593COMPLEMENT COMPONENT C3 IRNA COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFApril 2020August 2023Allow4021NoNo
16759362COMPOSITION OF DRUG TARGETS AND METHOD OF USING THEREOFApril 2020February 2024Allow4620YesNo
16634078Method of Preparing Oligonucleotide CompoundsJanuary 2020July 2023Abandon4201NoNo
16624977INHIBITOR OF SUV39H1 HISTONE METHYLTRANSFERASE FOR USE IN CANCER COMBINATION THERAPYDecember 2019May 2024Abandon5321NoYes
16659368ANTISENSE COMPOUNDSOctober 2019February 2023Abandon4001NoNo
16307695ANTISENSE OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR MODULATION OF LONG NONCODING RNASDecember 2018February 2024Abandon6001NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR.

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
0.3%
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

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR works in Art Unit 1635 and has examined 31 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 32.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR's allowance rate of 32.3% places them in the 2% 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 VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR receive 1.03 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 13% 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 +75.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR. 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 55.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 125.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 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.
  • 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.
  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • 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.