Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18781699 | RNA-GUIDED NUCLEASES AND ACTIVE FRAGMENTS AND VARIANTS THEREOF AND METHODS OF USE | July 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18532300 | MICROTUBULE ASSOCIATED PROTEIN TAU (MAPT) iRNA AGENT COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | December 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18242277 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COLD ATMOSPHERIC PLASMA BASED T CELL THERAPY | September 2023 | January 2025 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18356770 | OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR MODULATING TAU EXPRESSION | July 2023 | December 2024 | Abandon | 17 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17881935 | 1'-ALKYL MODIFIED RIBOSE DERIVATIVES AND METHODS OF USE | August 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17720129 | Oligomeric compound for inhibiting expression of Factor XI | April 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17715842 | Long Noncoding RNA Implicated in Cardiovascular Disease and Use Thereof | April 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17697717 | METHODS OF CANCER TREATMENT BY DELIVERY OF siRNAs AGAINST NSD3 | March 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17452844 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING ALPHA-1 ANTITRYPSIN EXPRESSION | October 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17387727 | COMPOUNDS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING APP EXPRESSION | July 2021 | May 2024 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17385208 | HBV BINDING OLIGONUCLEOTIDES AND METHODS OF USE | July 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17327631 | Use of Non-Coding Nucleic Acid for Crop Improvement and Protection Against Microbes | May 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17264451 | INHIBITOR OF TDP-43 AGGREGATION | March 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17164585 | ANTISENSE ANTIBACTERIAL COMPOUNDS AND METHODS | February 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17156421 | TREATMENT OF ANGIOPOIETIN LIKE 7 (ANGPTL7) RELATED DISEASES | January 2021 | April 2025 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17252593 | COMBINATION THERAPIES COMPRISING C/EBP ALPHA SARNA | December 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16951380 | Compounds and Methods for Use in Dystrophin Transcript | November 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17054983 | STEREOSPECIFIC LINKAGES IN RNA EDITING OLIGONUCLEOTIDES | November 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17054452 | OLIGONUCLEOTIDE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | November 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17053460 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING STRAND BIASED | November 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17047924 | CHIMERIC RNA-DRIVEN GENOMIC REARRANGEMENT IN MAMMALIAN CELLS | October 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17045125 | siRNAs WITH AT LEAST TWO LIGANDS AT DIFFERENT ENDS | October 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17020522 | MODIFIED POLYNUCLEOTIDES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BIOLOGICS AND PROTEINS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN DISEASE | September 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16979046 | CRISPR-NANOPARTICLES AND METHODS OF USE IN BRAIN DISORDERS | September 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17012948 | MODIFIED OLIGONUCLEOTIDES AND METHODS FOR THEIR SYNTHESIS | September 2020 | May 2025 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16755484 | SLC2A1 LNCRNA AS A BIOLOGIC AND RELATED TREATMENTS AND METHODS | April 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16625586 | FUNCTIONAL LIGANDS TO TARGET MOLECULES | December 2019 | January 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR.
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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR works in Art Unit 1637 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 46.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR's allowance rate of 46.2% places them in the 6% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR receive 1.96 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 63% 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 VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +53.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VYAS, KEYUR ANILKUMAR. This interview benefit is in the 95% 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, 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.
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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 85% 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 59% 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'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.