USPTO Examiner DUNSTON JENNIFER ANN - Art Unit 1637

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17047730Parvovirus Vector ProductionOctober 2020July 2024Allow4510NoNo
17030911HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION DIRECTED GENOME EDITING IN EUKARYOTESSeptember 2020January 2025Abandon5210NoNo
17010349TRANSPOSASE COMPOSITIONS FOR REDUCTION OF INSERTION BIASSeptember 2020September 2024Allow4920NoNo
17010107Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with Altered PAM SpecificitySeptember 2020August 2024Allow4810NoNo
15929386SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSPOSASE-MEDIATED AMPLICON SEQUENCINGApril 2020January 2025Abandon5780NoNo
16473492METHOD FOR EDITING FILAMENTOUS FUNGAL GENOME THROUGH DIRECT INTRODUCTION OF GENOME-EDITING PROTEINOctober 2019September 2024Allow6031NoNo
16514748GENERATING CELL-FREE DNA LIBRARIES DIRECTLY FROM BLOODJuly 2019April 2025Abandon6030YesNo
16462337Methods For Split-Protein Template Assembly By Proximity-Enhanced ReactivityMay 2019December 2024Abandon6001NoNo
15270998METHODS FOR PREDICTING RESPONSE OF TRIPLE-NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER TO THERAPYSeptember 2016August 2019Allow3520YesYes
14992431REPAIR AND REGENERATION OF OCULAR TISSUE USING POSTPARTUM-DERIVED CELLSJanuary 2016January 2019Allow3621NoNo
13341805METHYLATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF CANCER CELLSDecember 2011March 2015Allow3821YesNo
13058613Screening assays for compounds that modulate programmed ribosomal frameshiftingFebruary 2011September 2014Allow4321YesNo
13058653METHODS FOR TREATING SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHYFebruary 2011November 2014Allow4521YesNo
12522075IN VIVO GENOME-WIDE MUTAGENESISFebruary 2010May 2013Allow4720NoNo
12490195METHOD FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SCHIZOPHRENIAJune 2009December 2010Allow1810YesNo
12400955HYPOXIA INDUCING FACTORS AND USES THEREOF FOR INDUCING ANGIOGENESIS AND IMPROVING MUSCULAR FUNCTIONSMarch 2009September 2011Allow3011YesNo
12363650TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR HAVING ZINC FINGER DOMAINSJanuary 2009June 2011Allow2911YesNo
12196164BLOCKING SPORULATION BY INHIBITING SPOIIEAugust 2008October 2011Allow3821YesNo
12278903PROCESS AND CULTURING UNIT FOR CULTURING BIOLOGICAL CELLSAugust 2008November 2014Allow6031YesNo
12116307METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING OVERACTIVE BLADDERMay 2008January 2012Allow4520YesYes
11969799ESTABLISHED MARUCA VITRATA CELL LINEJanuary 2008July 2011Allow4320YesNo
11827396RECOMBINANT C140 RECEPTOR, IT'S AGONISTS AND ANTAGONISTS, AND NUCLEIC ACIDS ENCODING THE RECEPTORJuly 2007August 2010Allow3730NoNo
10575127METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING CONDITIONS INVOLVING ABNORMAL ANGIOGENESISJune 2007August 2010Allow5221YesNo
10578203Prion-Like Form of Cpeb and Related Compositions and MethodsMarch 2007October 2014Allow6031YesNo
11604400RET FINGER PROTEIN 2 (RFP2) PROMOTERNovember 2006March 2011Allow5230YesNo
11438933MODULATION OF HEDGEHOG-MEDIATED SIGNALING PATHWAYMay 2006June 2010Allow4931YesNo
11330363MIDECAMYCIN BIOSYNTHESIS GENESJanuary 2006April 2010Allow5131NoNo
11011349AEQUORIN AS A GROWTH MARKER IN YEASTDecember 2004July 2009Allow5550NoYes
10977087HX2004-6 POLYPEPTIDE EXPRESSED IN CANCEROUS CELLSOctober 2004August 2010Allow6023YesNo
10506192COLD SHOCK INDUCIBLE EXPRESSION AND PRODUCTION OF HETEROLOGOUS POLYPEPTIDESSeptember 2004June 2009Allow5731NoNo
10505328GENOME MINIMIZATION BY TN5-COUPLED CRE/LOXP EXCISION SYSTEMAugust 2004February 2010Allow6010YesNo
10483241ONCOSUPPORESSIVE GENEJuly 2004November 2006Allow3411NoNo
10876787BIOMARKERS FOR WOUND HEALINGJune 2004June 2011Allow6081YesYes
10842142PROTEIN KINASE C ZETA AS A DRUG TARGET FOR ARTHRITIS AND OTHER INFLAMMATORY DISEASESMay 2004August 2009Allow6061YesNo
10493393HUMAN AND MAMMALIAN STEM CELL-DERIVED NEURON SURVIVAL FACTORSApril 2004April 2007Allow3631NoNo
10827133DESTABILIZED BIOLUMINESCENT PROTEINSApril 2004April 2007Allow3640NoNo
10479546DETECTION OF MECT1-MAML2 FUSION PRODUCTSMarch 2004December 2006Allow3721NoNo
10786461IN VITRO MASS PRODUCTION OF HUMAN ERYTHROID CELLS FROM THE BLOOD OF NORMAL DONORS AND THALASSEMIC PATIENTSFebruary 2004May 2005Allow1510NoNo
10767630METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR HUMAN BLADDER EPITHELIAL CELL CULTUREJanuary 2004September 2006Allow3130NoNo
10764581METHODS OF RNA AND PROTEIN SYNTHESISJanuary 2004August 2006Allow3021NoNo
10669861ZINC FINGER TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR DIFFERENTIATION PROTEINSSeptember 2003December 2008Allow6051YesNo
10661242DIAGNOSIS OF MILD OSTEOARTHRITIS BY DETERMINATION OF TNFAIP6 AND TGFBI RNA LEVELSSeptember 2003December 2007Allow5121NoNo
10645250NUCLEIC ACID MOLECULES ENCODING NRC INTERACTING FACTOR-1 (NIF-1)August 2003September 2007Allow4921NoYes
10623914PROBES FOR CHONDROGENESISJuly 2003November 2007Allow5121NoNo
10447834APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR REINFORCING CONCRETE USING REBAR SUPPORTSMay 2003January 2005Allow1920NoNo
10438279CULTURABLE MITOCHONDRIAL CELLS WITH NO NUCLEUS, SHOWING MITOCHONDRIAL ACTIVITYMay 2003February 2006Allow3321NoNo
10428977IN VITRO MUTAGENESIS, PHENOTYPING, AND GENE MAPPINGMay 2003December 2006Allow4321NoNo
10415489NOVEL CLOCK GENE PROMOTERApril 2003June 2005Allow2520NoNo
10400348IDENTIFYING CALCINEURIN ACTIVATORS FOR TREATMENT OF SCHIZOPHRENIAMarch 2003December 2010Allow6031YesNo
10389821THERMOANAEROBACTER BROCKII ALCOHOL DEHYDROGENASE PROMOTER FOR EXPRESSION OF HETEROLOGOUS PROTEINSMarch 2003April 2007Allow4940NoNo
10168365POLYNUCLEOTIDES ENCODING STEM CELL GROWTH FACTOR-LIKE POLYPEPTIDESFebruary 2003August 2007Allow6041NoNo
10319316COMPOSITIONS FOR IMPORTING BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE MOLECULES INTO CELLSDecember 2002August 2012Allow6091YesYes
10301498DETECTION METHODS BASED ON HR23 PROTEIN BINDING MOLECULESNovember 2002June 2010Allow6041YesNo
10282617NOVEL ZINC FINGER PROTEINSOctober 2002June 2007Allow5621NoNo
10242535DIAGNOSIS OF OSTEOARTHRITIS BY DETERMINATION OF ASPORIN RNA LEVELSSeptember 2002July 2010Allow6031NoYes
10229148MIDECAMYCIN BIOSYNTHETIC GENESAugust 2002October 2005Allow3821NoNo
10228931ANIMAL MODEL SYSTEM FOR PHTODAMAGE, PHOTOAGING AND SKIN WOUNDINGAugust 2002January 2005Allow2910NoNo
10223837TRANSGENIC MICE OVEREXPRESSING ASPARTYL PROTEASE 2 (ASP2)August 2002March 2005Allow3111NoNo
10204200CELL FUSION ASSAYS USING FLUORESCENCE RESONANCE ENERGY TRANSFERAugust 2002June 2005Allow3420NoYes
10089543ISOLATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF A FIBER-SPECIFIC BETA-TUBULIN PROMOTER FROM COTTONAugust 2002September 2005Allow4110NoNo
10200879PEPTIDE-ENHANCED TRANSFECTIONSJuly 2002June 2011Allow6071YesYes
10186732HYDROPHOBE BIOMOLECULAR STRUCTUREJuly 2002March 2005Allow3311NoNo
10130739PHOSPHORUS-CONTAINING DENDRIMERS AS TRANSFECTION AGENTSJuly 2002August 2005Allow3920NoNo
10177478CHIMERIC HISTONE ACETYLTRANSFERASE POLYPEPTIDESJune 2002April 2007Allow5832NoNo
10130872TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR POLYPEPTIDE THAT REGULATES CHONDROMODULIN-I EXPRESSIONMay 2002March 2007Allow5831NoNo
10150759METHOD OF IDENTIFYING SUBSTANCES USEFUL FOR PROMOTING RESISTANCE TO CELL STRESSMay 2002September 2007Allow6041NoNo
10143293INHIBITORS OF RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR OF NF-KAPPAB AND USES THEREOFMay 2002October 2004Allow3011NoNo
10120013RIBONUCLEASE RESISTANT RNA PREPARATION AND UTILIZATIONApril 2002August 2005Allow4131NoNo
10104137ALGORITHM FOR SELECTING AUDIO CONTENTMarch 2002September 2005Allow4220YesNo
09971536LACTOBACILLUS RHAMNOSUS POLYNUCLEOTIDES, POLYPEPTIDES AND METHODS FOR USING THEMOctober 2001June 2005Allow4501NoNo
09830669CELLS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING PROTEINS COMPRISING AN UNCONVENTIONAL AMINO ACIDApril 2001January 2010Allow60101YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
10
Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(40.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
6
(60.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
65.3%
Higher 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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN works in Art Unit 1637 and has examined 71 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.4%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN's allowance rate of 94.4% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN receive 2.70 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 75% 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 DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 10% 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 +3.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DUNSTON, JENNIFER ANN. This interview benefit is in the 26% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

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 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 52.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 80% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

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, 88.9% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 64.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 68% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 35.2% of allowed cases (in the 100% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 3.0% of allowed cases (in the 75% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.