Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19187342 | IL31-BINDING POLYPEPTIDES AND USES THEREOF | April 2025 | August 2025 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17990480 | BLOCKADE OF IFN SIGNALING DURING CANCER VACCINATION | November 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17978128 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF TREATMENT FOR VASCULAR DISEASES AND THROMBOSIS | October 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18050195 | SURFACE-MODIFIED EXOSOMES AND METHODS OF USE | October 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17767444 | B7-H3 NANOBODY, PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOF | April 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 37 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17589049 | COLD-SHOCK PROTEIN SCAFFOLD FOR ENGINEERING NON-ANTIBODY BINDING PROTEINS | January 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17630361 | ANTIBODIES FOR THE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF B-CELL ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA | January 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17577132 | CONTROLLING OF IMMUNE ACTIVATION BY SOLUBLE CLEVER-1 | January 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17625934 | AGENTS THAT INTERFERE WITH THYMIC STROMAL LYMPHOPOIETIN (TSLP)-RECEPTOR SIGNALING | January 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 41 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17625724 | ANTIBODIES SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZING PSEUDOMONAS PCRV AND USES THEREOF | January 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 42 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17621946 | FORMULATION COMPRISING ANTI-CD47/PD-L1 BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME AND USE THEREOF | December 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17617469 | ANTIBODY DIRECTED AGAINST THE APOE AMINO-TERMINAL FRAGMENT OF 12KDA | December 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17613440 | NOVEL CLDN18.2 BINDING MOLECULE | November 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17602908 | Activatable Multi-Specific Antigen Binding Protein Complexes | October 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17602511 | ANTIBODY TO TIGIT AND USE THEREOF | October 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17594131 | ENGINEERING OF AN ANTIBODY FOR TUMOR-SELECTIVE BINDING OF CD47 | October 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17594134 | ENGINEERING OF AN ANTIBODY FOR TUMOR-SELECTIVE BINDING OF CD47 | October 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17600598 | COLORECTAL CANCER CONSENSUS MOLECULAR SUBTYPE CLASSIFIER CODESETS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | September 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17599948 | IMMUNOTHERAPEUTIC COMPOSITIONS AND USE THEREOF | September 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17437212 | High-Affinity TCR for Recognizing AFP Antigen | September 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 50 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17388090 | CAUSTIC STABLE CHROMATOGRAPHY LIGANDS | July 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17057898 | DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ANTI-C5 ANTIBODIES FOR TREATMENT OF ATYPICAL HEMOLYTIC UREMIC SYNDROME (aHUS) IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS | November 2020 | August 2025 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MCLELLAN, JAMES LYLE.
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 MCLELLAN, JAMES LYLE works in Art Unit 1641 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 58.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner MCLELLAN, JAMES LYLE's allowance rate of 58.3% places them in the 19% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MCLELLAN, JAMES LYLE receive 0.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MCLELLAN, JAMES LYLE is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MCLELLAN, JAMES LYLE. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
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.