Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16991455 | GENERATION OF NEURAL STEM CELLS AND MOTOR NEURONS | August 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16990350 | Compositions for Regenerating Defective or Absent Myocardium | August 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16872610 | BIFIDOBACTERIUM LONGUM | May 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16848717 | SIGNALLING SYSTEM | April 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16841810 | HLA-G AS A NOVEL TARGET FOR CAR T-CELL IMMUNOTHERAPY | April 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16837661 | CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS, COMPOSITIONS, AND METHODS | April 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16826053 | T CELL-ANTIGEN COUPLER WITH VARIOUS CONSTRUCT OPTIMIZATIONS | March 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16817424 | METHOD OF PRODUCING ERYTHROCYTES | March 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16722872 | USE OF ADIPOSE TISSUE-DERIVED STROMAL STEM CELLS IN TREATING FISTULA | December 2019 | May 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16716033 | MODIFIED FRIEDREICH ATAXIA GENES AND VECTORS FOR GENE THERAPY | December 2019 | February 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16712863 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR MODULATING PERIPHERAL IMMUNE FUNCTION | December 2019 | October 2023 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16659918 | HLA G-MODIFIED CELLS AND METHODS | October 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16592117 | CELL SUSPENSION AND USE THEREOF | October 2019 | February 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16496261 | A GENETICALLY MODIFIED MOUSE EXPRESSING HUMAN APOE4 AND MOUSE TREM2 P.R47H AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | September 2019 | December 2023 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16574875 | METHODS OF MAKING CELLULAR COMPOSITIONS DERIVED FROM DECEASED DONORS TO PROMOTE GRAFT TOLERANCE | September 2019 | May 2024 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16572425 | IN VITRO PRODUCTION OF RED BLOOD CELLS WITH PROTEINS COMPRISING SORTASE RECOGNITION MOTIFS | September 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 52 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16478466 | HUMAN ANTIBODIES FROM TRANSGENIC RODENTS WITH MULTIPLE HEAVY CHAIN IMMUNOGLOBULIN LOCI | July 2019 | February 2024 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16470968 | CELL EXPRESSING A CAR AND A TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR AND ITS USE | June 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16442348 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS TARGETING COMPLEMENT COMPONENT 3 FOR INHIBITING TUMOR GROWTH | June 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16349225 | NOVEL FEEDER CELL AND METHOD FOR GROWING GAMMA DELTA T CELLS BY USING SAME | May 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16240361 | SINGLE-CELL GENOMIC METHODS TO GENERATE EX VIVO CELL SYSTEMS THAT RECAPITULATE IN VIVO BIOLOGY WITH IMPROVED FIDELITY | January 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16066788 | METHODS OF MAKING CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR-EXPRESSING CELLS | June 2018 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16064017 | IMMUNOGENIC COMPOSITION | June 2018 | January 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15095889 | NON-HUMAN MAMMALS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CHIMERIC ANTIBODIES | April 2016 | March 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 15095873 | NON-HUMAN MAMMALS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CHIMERIC ANTIBODIES | April 2016 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ works in Art Unit 1638 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 48.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ's allowance rate of 48.0% places them in the 12% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ receive 2.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 72% 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 LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +63.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEAVITT, MARIA GOMEZ. 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, 15.2% 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 28.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% 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 2% 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.