USPTO Examiner NICKOL GARY B - Art Unit 1643

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19205170NOVEL CYTOKINE-BASED THERAPIES AND METHODSMay 2025February 2026Allow1011NoNo
18002881ANTI-RSV ANTIBODY AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING SAMEDecember 2022August 2025Allow3100NoNo
17998642ANTI-OSCAR ANTIBODY FOR PREVENTING OR TREATING OSTEOARTHRITISNovember 2022February 2026Allow3911NoNo
17914027CD28H DOMAIN-CONTAINING CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS AND METHODS OF USESeptember 2022March 2026Allow4211YesNo
17620064COMPOSITIONS AND ARTICLES COMPRISING (NANO)DIAMOND PARTICLESAugust 2022December 2025Abandon4810NoNo
17759854HUMAN BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER TARGETING ANTIBODIESJuly 2022August 2025Allow3601NoNo
17638453METHOD FOR THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME USING AN INHIBITORY OR CYTOTOXIC AGENT AGAINST PLASMA CELLSFebruary 2022December 2025Allow4611YesNo
17621711TNF MUTEINS AND USES THEREOFDecember 2021December 2025Allow4811YesNo
17442072ANTI-HER2 BINDING MOLECULESSeptember 2021August 2025Allow4611NoNo
17051860T CELL RECEPTORS WHICH RECOGNIZE MUTATED EGFROctober 2020November 2025Allow6031NoNo
16975431RAPID AND SIMPLE PURIFICATION OF ELASTIN-LIKE POLYPEPTIDES DIRECTLY FROM WHOLE CELLS AND CELL LYSATES BY ORGANIC SOLVENT EXTRACTIONAugust 2020February 2026Allow6020YesNo
13757655BACTERIOPHAGE-CONTAINING THERAPEUTIC AGENTSFebruary 2013February 2017Allow4931YesNo
11266444ANTIBODIES THAT IMMUNOSPECIFICALLY BIND TO B LYMPHOCYTE STIMULATOR PROTEINNovember 2005March 2009Allow4121NoNo
10300247USE OF NUCLEIC ACIDS CONTAINING UNMETHYLATED CPG DINUCLEOTIDE AS AN ADJUVANTNovember 2002February 2012Allow6091NoNo
09880748ANTIBODIES THAT IMMUNOSPECIFICALLY BIND BLYSJune 2001December 2005Allow5421YesNo

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 NICKOL, GARY B - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner NICKOL, GARY B works in Art Unit 1643 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner NICKOL, GARY B's allowance rate of 88.9% places them in the 70% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by NICKOL, GARY B receive 2.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NICKOL, GARY B is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 +20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NICKOL, GARY B. This interview benefit is in the 63% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 21.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 25% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 71% 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 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.