USPTO Examiner PETERS ALEC JON - Art Unit 1641

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18427623High Efficiency Methods for Isolating ProteinsJanuary 2024May 2025Abandon1510NoNo
18179057COMBINATIONS WITH AN ANTI HUMAN CD39 ANTIBODY, AN ANTI HUMAN PD-1 ANTIBODY, AND CHEMOTHERAPY IN GASTRIC CANCERMarch 2023May 2025Abandon2610NoNo
17741234ANTI-TMPRSS6 ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFMay 2022June 2025Allow3711NoNo
17626239Caninized Antibodies Against Canine CTLA-4January 2022June 2025Allow4101NoNo
17620496MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES AGAINST JC VIRUSDecember 2021May 2025Allow4001NoNo
17608992CIRCULATING TUMOR CELL BASED BIOMARKER COMPOSITION FOR DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS OF METASTATIC PROSTATE CANCERNovember 2021March 2025Allow4010YesNo
17608381NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODIES TO PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM CIRCUMSPOROZOITE PROTEIN AND THEIR USENovember 2021December 2024Allow3700YesNo
17604294OVEREXPRESSION OF IMMUNOPROTEASOME IN HOST CELLS FOR GENERATING ANTIGEN-PRESENTING CELLSOctober 2021June 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17294713METHODS FOR IMPROVING THE EFFICACY OF A SURVIVIN THERAPEUTIC IN THE TREATMENT OF TUMORSOctober 2021June 2025Abandon4901NoNo
17491853SELECTIVE LOCAL INHIBITION OF TNFR1-MEDIATED FUNCTIONS AT THE SITE OF ANTIGEN/ALLERGEN PRESENTATIONOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17600805ANTIBODY VARIANTS WITH PH-DEPENDENT ANTIGEN BINDING FOR SELECTIVE TARGETING OF SOLID TUMORSOctober 2021April 2025Allow4211NoNo
17436857ANTI-CANCER COMBINATION THERAPIES COMPRISING CTLA-4 AND PD-1 BLOCKING AGENTSSeptember 2021March 2025Allow4211YesNo
17311226Primary NK CAR Constructs And MethodsJune 2021June 2025Allow4821NoNo
17299147PCSK9 ANTAGONISTSJune 2021April 2025Allow4611YesNo

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 PETERS, ALEC JON - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner PETERS, ALEC JON works in Art Unit 1641 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 69.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner PETERS, ALEC JON's allowance rate of 69.2% places them in the 23% 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 PETERS, ALEC JON receive 0.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PETERS, ALEC JON is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 4% 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 +44.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PETERS, ALEC JON. This interview benefit is in the 92% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% 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.

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.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • 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.