Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256441 | CONSTITUTIVELY ACTIVE FORM OF MYB46 | December 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17095644 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR GENETIC MANIPULATION OF METHANOTROPHS | November 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17005241 | Assessment of Polygenic Trait Risk via Trait Components and Applications Thereof | August 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16968633 | ANTIGEN-BINDING MOLECULE AND COMBINATION | August 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16464194 | CHEMOENDOCRINE SCORE (CES) BASED ON PAM50 FOR BREAST CANCER WITH POSITIVE HORMONE RECEPTORS WITH AN INTERMEDIATE RISK OF RECURRENCE | August 2020 | April 2023 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16943690 | VAGINAL AND FECAL MICROBIOME BIOMARKERS FOR PREDICTING BOVINE REPRODUCTIVE TRAITS | July 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16938377 | BACTERIAL COLICIN-IMMUNITY PROTEIN PROTEIN PURIFICATION SYSTEM | July 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16922554 | METHOD FOR RESTRICTION ENDONUCLEASE-MEDIATED PRIMER GENERATION-ROLLING AMPLIFICATION | July 2020 | April 2023 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16960064 | SRNA PLATFORM FOR INHIBITING PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION AND USE THEREOF | July 2020 | October 2023 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16739821 | Protection of Cells from Degeneration and Treatment of Geographic Atrophy | January 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16626805 | MICROORGANISM WITH STABILIZED COPY NUMBER OF FUNCTIONAL DNA SEQUENCE AND ASSOCIATED METHODS | December 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16498993 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS SPECIFICALLY TARGETING THE APOLIPOPROTEIN E4 (APOE4) AND USES THEREOF IN APOE4 ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS | September 2019 | January 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16489595 | AAV-Mediated Direct In vivo CRISPR Screen in Glioblastoma | August 2019 | December 2023 | Abandon | 52 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16505886 | PREDICTED METABOLITES FOR BIOINDICATORS AND/OR IDENTIFICATION OF MICROBES WITH SPECIFIC METABOLITES | July 2019 | August 2023 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16441647 | SYNTHETIC 5' UTR SEQUENCES, AND HIGH-THROUGHPUT ENGINEERING AND SCREENING THEREOF | June 2019 | August 2023 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16402626 | ANALYSIS OF NUCLEIC ACIDS ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE CELLS USING NUCLEIC ACID BARCODES | May 2019 | July 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 15881684 | CRISPR-BASED COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE | January 2018 | February 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15805950 | SYNTHETIC YEAST CELLS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME | November 2017 | October 2023 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15130846 | USE OF CRISPR/CAS9 AS IN VIVO GENE THERAPY TO GENERATE TARGETED GENOMIC DISRUPTIONS IN GENES BEARING DOMINANT MUTATIONS FOR RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA | April 2016 | December 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES.
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 RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES works in Art Unit 1636 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 31.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.
Examiner RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES's allowance rate of 31.6% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES receive 2.47 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 68% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +65.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RYAN, DOUGLAS CHARLES. This interview benefit is in the 97% 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, 15.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 13% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 75% 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.
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, 150.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 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.