USPTO Examiner HECK BRYAN WILLIAM - Art Unit 1643

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18807097METHODS OF MANUFACTURING DIMERIC ANTIBODIESAugust 2024February 2025Allow610NoNo
18060135CD38 MODULATING ANTIBODYNovember 2022January 2025Allow2610NoNo
17933954HETERODIMERIC Fc FOR MAKING FUSION PROTEINS AND BISPECIFIC ANTIBODIESSeptember 2022May 2025Allow3111YesNo
17698889CHIMERIC CELLS COMPRISING DENDRITIC CELLS AND ENDOTHELIAL CELLS RESEMBLING TUMOR ENDOTHELIUMMarch 2022April 2025Abandon3710NoNo
17611054EPCAM BINDING PROTEINS AND METHODS OF USENovember 2021April 2025Allow4200YesNo
17608738CLL-1 TARGETED IMMUNOTHERAPIESNovember 2021May 2025Allow4310NoNo
17507531ANTHRACYCLINE ANTIBODY-DRUG CONJUGATES AND USES THEREOFOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4301NoNo
17604555ANTI-PD-1 ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFOctober 2021May 2025Allow4310NoNo
17603761ANTI AQP3 MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY SPECIFICALLY BINDING TO EXTRACELLULAR DOMAIN OF AQUAPORIN 3 (AQP3) AND USE THEREOFOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4301NoNo
17599377Engineered Variant Antibodies that Bind CD38September 2021June 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17441519GLYPICAN-3 (GPC-3) ANTIBODIESSeptember 2021April 2025Allow4320YesNo
17310957ANTI-FXI/FXIA ANTIBODY AND USE THEREOFSeptember 2021December 2024Allow4001YesNo
17403406ANTI-TREM2 ANTIBODIES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFAugust 2021March 2025Allow4311NoNo
17399729Activatable Anti-CTLA-4 Antibodies and Uses ThereofAugust 2021June 2025Allow4611NoNo
17429672ANTI-MATRIX METALLOPROTEINASE 7 (MMP-7) INHIBITORY ANTIBODY AND USES THEREOFAugust 2021February 2025Allow4310YesNo
17331768Chimeric antigen receptor with a spacer comprising C2-set Ig-like domainsMay 2021March 2025Allow4610YesNo

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 HECK, BRYAN WILLIAM - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HECK, BRYAN WILLIAM works in Art Unit 1643 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 73.3%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HECK, BRYAN WILLIAM's allowance rate of 73.3% places them in the 29% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by HECK, BRYAN WILLIAM receive 0.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 8% 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 HECK, BRYAN WILLIAM is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 3% 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 HECK, BRYAN WILLIAM. 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% 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, 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • 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.
  • 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.