Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17132176 | TUMOR-ASSOCIATED MARKERS FOR DETECTION OF MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE USING DIGITAL DROPLET PCR | December 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17253259 | SURFACE EXPRESSION VECTOR USING POLY-GAMMA-GLUTAMATE SYNTHETIC GENE DERIVED FROM STRAIN IN BACILLUS, AND METHOD FOR EXPRESSING PROTEIN ON SURFACE OF MICROORGANISM, USING SAME | December 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17251145 | DIFFERENTIALLY-METHYLATED REGIONS OF THE GENOME USEFUL AS MARKERS OF EMBRYO-ADULT TRANSITIONS | December 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16972938 | SYNTHETIC LIVER-TROPIC ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS CAPSIDS AND USES THEREOF | December 2020 | May 2025 | Allow | 53 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17059431 | IN VITRO METHOD FOR MONITORING THE PATHOGEN LOAD IN AN ANIMAL POPULATION | November 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17057595 | METHOD FOR PRODUCING FUSION PROTEIN, NUCLEIC ACID, CELL, AND ANIMAL | November 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17045053 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS TO IDENTIFY NOVEL CRISPR SYSTEMS | October 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17045118 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF STARGARDT DISEASE | October 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17043100 | METHODS FOR PREDICTING THE RISK OF DEVELOPING PULMONARY COLONIZATION/INFECTION BY PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA | September 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16961500 | IMMUNO-EVASIVE VECTORS AND USE FOR GENE THERAPY | July 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16799064 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING SENSITIVITY TO SGLT2 INHIBITOR AND SENSITIVITY MARKER FOR SGLT2 INHIBITOR | February 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 16616214 | METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING AUTISM BY ANALYZING BACTERIAL METAGENOME | November 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16610846 | REGULATABLE GENE EDITING COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS | November 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16591392 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR MODULATION OF TAU PROTEINS | October 2019 | January 2025 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16485822 | DNA WRITERS, MOLECULAR RECORDERS AND USES THEREOF | August 2019 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16422824 | RNA-GUIDED NUCLEIC ACID MODIFYING ENZYMES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | May 2019 | June 2023 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16411485 | Methods of Detecting Bladder Cancer | May 2019 | February 2024 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16281939 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR DETECTING A TARGET RNA | February 2019 | July 2023 | Allow | 53 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16127664 | Methods of Identifying and Treating Subjects having Inflammatory Subphenotypes of Asthma | September 2018 | July 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15968616 | EXPRESSION VECTOR AND METHOD OF PREPARING A POLYPEPTIDE OF INTEREST USING THE SAME | May 2018 | February 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HASSELL, KELLY NICHET.
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 HASSELL, KELLY NICHET works in Art Unit 1636 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 45.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.
Examiner HASSELL, KELLY NICHET's allowance rate of 45.0% places them in the 10% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HASSELL, KELLY NICHET receive 2.05 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 50% 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 HASSELL, KELLY NICHET is 53 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +54.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HASSELL, KELLY NICHET. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 40% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 50% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 93% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 86% 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 frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 27% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
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 2% 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.