USPTO Examiner MCKILLOP JOHN CHARLES - Art Unit 1637

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18800329BEAUVERIA BASSIANA STRAIN WITH HIGH ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION RESISTANCE AS WELL AS DIRECTIONAL MUTAGENESIS METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOFAugust 2024May 2025Allow1011YesNo
18498577ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS (AAV) PRODUCER CELL LINESOctober 2023May 2025Allow1821YesNo
18082506APPLICATION OF VEGFR GENE EXPRESSION INHIBITOR IN PREPARING PREPARATION OR AS PREPARATION FOR TREATING PSORIASISDecember 2022June 2025Abandon3021NoNo
17935492PROMOTING NUTRIENT ABSORPTION THROUGH THE COLONSeptember 2022May 2025Allow3120NoNo
17711975COMBINATIONS OF SIRNAS WITH SIRNAS AGAINST SULF2 OR GPC3 FOR USE IN TREATING CANCERApril 2022March 2025Abandon3621NoNo
17435161KIT, DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR DETECTING UTERINE LEIOMYOSARCOMAAugust 2021March 2025Abandon4210NoNo
17311502COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TREATING OR PREVENTING NASH, NAFLD, DIABETES, ATHEROSCLEROSIS, AND/OR OBESITYJune 2021May 2025Abandon4710NoNo
17298896PROCESS TO INHIBIT OR ELIMINATE EOSINOPHILIC DISEASES OF THE AIRWAY AND RELATED CONDITIONSJune 2021April 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17331398Gold Optimized CAR T-cellsMay 2021November 2024Abandon4101NoNo
17290298MicroRNA Compounds and Methods for Modulating MIR-10B ActivityApril 2021February 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17283845MYOCARDIAL ENHANCER RNA AND METHODS OF USEApril 2021January 2025Allow4611NoNo
17276320INCREASING GENE EXPRESSIONMarch 2021June 2024Allow3920NoNo
17276201METHOD FOR EXTENDING TELOMERE OF CELLMarch 2021January 2025Allow4620YesNo
17265749AAV VARIANTS WITH ENHANCED TROPISMFebruary 2021April 2025Allow5111NoNo
17265489VARIANT RNAi AGAINST ALPHA-SYNUCLEINFebruary 2021March 2025Allow4921NoNo
17147797OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR MODULATING RTEL1 EXPRESSIONJanuary 2021June 2025Allow5321NoNo
17252584TREATMENT OF AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS AND DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPINAL CORDDecember 2020January 2025Abandon4910NoNo
17055972METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR USING METAL ELEMENTS IN AAV GENE THERAPYNovember 2020April 2025Abandon5230NoNo
16980369Assessing Transplant Rejection Status by Analysis of T-Cell Receptor Subunit Repertoire DiversitySeptember 2020March 2025Allow5421YesNo
16347134METHOD OF DETECTING TUMOUR RECURRENCEMay 2019January 2025Allow6052NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner MCKILLOP, JOHN CHARLES - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MCKILLOP, JOHN CHARLES works in Art Unit 1637 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 52.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MCKILLOP, JOHN CHARLES's allowance rate of 52.6% places them in the 9% 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 MCKILLOP, JOHN CHARLES receive 1.74 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 51% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MCKILLOP, JOHN CHARLES is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 2% 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 +56.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MCKILLOP, JOHN CHARLES. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 57.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 79% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 2% 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.