USPTO Examiner SHUPE ELIZABETH A - Art Unit 1643

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18907087BINDING AGENTS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAMEOctober 2024March 2025Allow510YesNo
18734892TAU BINDING COMPOUNDSJune 2024February 2025Allow810NoNo
18183840BISPECIFIC GPC3xCD28 AND GPC3xCD3 ANTIBODIES AND THEIR COMBINATION FOR TARGETED KILLING OF GPC3 POSITIVE MALIGNANT CELLSMarch 2023June 2024Allow1510YesNo
18099448ANTI-CANINE CD16 POLYPEPTIDES, ANTI-CANINE CD64 POLYPEPTIDES, COMPOSITIONS INCLUDING SAME, AND METHODS OF USINGJanuary 2023November 2024Allow2221YesNo
18056679DICKKOPF-1 VARIANT ANTIBODIES AND METHODS OF USENovember 2022July 2024Allow1911NoNo
17964213BRAIN-TARGETING SINGLE DOMAIN ANTIBODIES AND PURIFICATION METHODSOctober 2022July 2024Allow2121YesNo
18045671METHODS OF EFFECTING A HEMODYNAMIC CHANGE BY ADMINISTERING AN ANTI-NPR1 ANTIBODYOctober 2022November 2024Abandon2511NoNo
17596066USE OF PRG4 TO TREAT CANCERDecember 2021June 2025Abandon4210NoNo
17615508ALK7 BINDING PROTEINS AND USES THEREOFNovember 2021March 2025Allow4010NoNo
17605933MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY THAT BINDS SPECIFICALLY TO GITROctober 2021June 2025Allow4410YesNo
17600862THERAPEUTIC ANTIBODIES FOR TREATING LUNG CANCEROctober 2021March 2025Allow4210YesNo
17437771ANTI-VBETA17/ANTI-CD123 BISPECIFIC ANTIBODIESSeptember 2021November 2024Allow3810NoNo
17431218BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY SPECIFICALLY BINDING TO GPNMB AND CD3, AND USE THEREOFAugust 2021February 2025Allow4211NoNo
17391821ANTI-N3pGlu AMYLOID BETA PEPTIDE ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17443888VARIABLE REGION SEQUENCE OF BROAD-SPECTRUM ANTIBODY AGAINST CLOTHIANIDIN AND DINOTEFURAN AND PREPARATION OF INTACT RECOMBINANT ANTIBODY THEREOFJuly 2021September 2024Allow3710NoNo
17425296ANTI-PD-L1 DIABODIES AND THE USE THEREOFJuly 2021January 2025Allow4110NoNo
17375940ANTIBODIES BINDING CTLA-4 AND USES THEREOFJuly 2021September 2024Allow3800NoNo
17418447BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY BINDING TO TfRJune 2021November 2024Allow4101NoNo
17417239ACTIVATABLE MASKED ANTI-CTLA4 BINDING PROTEINSJune 2021April 2025Allow4611YesNo
17309713REVERSAL BINDING AGENTS FOR ANTI-FACTOR XI/XIA ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFJune 2021January 2025Abandon4311NoNo
17413496ANTI-HUMAN CSF-1R ANTIBODY AND USES THEREOFJune 2021May 2024Allow3500YesNo
17311085MODIFIED PRODUCT OF FC DOMAIN OF ANTIBODYJune 2021March 2025Allow4520YesNo
17297719ANTI-PD-L1 ANTIBODY PREPARATIONMay 2021November 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17293729FUSION PROTEIN AND USE THEREOFMay 2021March 2025Allow4611NoNo
17292739A MULTISPECIFIC ANTIBODY AND PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOFMay 2021May 2025Allow4820YesNo
17292592SINGLE DOMAIN ANTIBODIES THAT BIND HUMAN SERUM ALBUMINMay 2021January 2025Allow4410NoNo
17292488ANTI-B7-H3 ANTIBODY, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, CONJUGATE AND APPLICATION THEREOFMay 2021January 2025Allow4511YesNo
17290352NOVEL ANTAGONISTIC ANTI-TNFR2 ANTIBODIESApril 2021May 2025Allow4820YesNo
17286011Compositions and Methods for Treatment of Liver DiseaseApril 2021November 2024Abandon4310NoNo
17285952RGMC-SELECTIVE INHIBITORS AND USE THEREOFApril 2021January 2025Allow4511YesNo
17283842HUMANIZED MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES AGAINST INTERLEUKIN-6, ENCODING GENES AND USES THEREOFApril 2021February 2025Abandon4611NoNo
17276779EGFR BINDING PROTEINS AND METHODS OF USEMarch 2021September 2024Allow4211NoNo
17191710DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMBINANT CHICKEN IGY MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY AND SCFV ANTIBODIES RAISED AGAINST HUMAN TYMIDINE KINASE 1 EXPRESSED IN MAMMALIAN CELLS AND USE THEREOFMarch 2021September 2024Allow4320NoNo
17272136COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING DONOR OLIGONUCLEOTIDE-BASED GENE EDITINGFebruary 2021June 2025Allow5221YesNo
17264388ANTIGEN-BINDING MOLECULE CONTAINING TWO ANTIGEN-BINDING DOMAINS THAT ARE LINKED TO EACH OTHERJanuary 2021June 2025Allow5330NoNo
17261823COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TCR REPROGRAMMING USING TARGET SPECIFIC FUSION PROTEINSJanuary 2021July 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17144588ANTIBODIES SPECIFIC TO FOLATE RECEPTOR ALPHAJanuary 2021March 2025Allow5111YesNo
17143386ROR-1 SPECIFIC CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORS AND USES THEREOFJanuary 2021December 2024Allow4721YesNo
17132324MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES ACTIVATING CD40 AND USES THEREOFDecember 2020January 2024Allow3600NoNo
17252069SCREENING METHODS USING GPRC6A TASTE RECEPTORS AND PET FOOD PRODUCTS AND COMPOSITIONS PREPARED USING THE SAMEDecember 2020July 2024Allow4421YesNo
17046601De-immunized Factor VIII Molecule and Pharmaceutical Compositions Comprising the SameOctober 2020August 2024Allow4720YesNo

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 SHUPE, ELIZABETH A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SHUPE, ELIZABETH A works in Art Unit 1643 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 79.5%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SHUPE, ELIZABETH A's allowance rate of 79.5% places them in the 41% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SHUPE, ELIZABETH A receive 1.21 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 20% 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 SHUPE, ELIZABETH A 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 +36.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHUPE, ELIZABETH A. This interview benefit is in the 87% 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 90.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 98% 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, 120.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 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 12.9% of allowed cases (in the 90% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

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.