USPTO Examiner ALSOMAIRY SARAH ABDOALATIF - Art Unit 1646

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18618414ANTI-HER2 ANTIBODY OR ANTIGEN-BINDING FRAGMENT THEREOF, AND CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR COMPRISING SAMEMarch 2024May 2025Allow1310NoNo
18612767DIAGNOSTIC METHODS USING ANTI-MUC1* ANTIBODIESMarch 2024March 2025Allow1211YesNo
18415608HETERODIMERIC ANTIBODIES THAT BIND PROSTATE SPECIFIC MEMBRANE ANTIGEN (PSMA) AND CD3January 2024May 2025Allow1510NoNo
18510412COMBINATION THERAPIES WITH BISPECIFIC ANTI-EGFR/C-MET ANTIBODIES AND THIRD GENERATION EGFR TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITORSNovember 2023June 2025Allow1920NoNo
18453404Anti-BCMA Antibody Drug Conjugate Combination Treatment for CancerAugust 2023October 2024Allow1410NoNo
18446032ANTIBODIES BINDING TO CD3 and CD19August 2023September 2024Allow1401NoNo
18334582CD70 COMBINATION THERAPYJune 2023January 2025Abandon1920NoNo
18332366CD38-BINDING PROTEINS COMPRISING DE-IMMUNIZED SHIGA TOXIN A SUBUNIT EFFECTORSJune 2023July 2024Allow1410NoNo
18328707COMBINATION PRODUCT FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCERJune 2023April 2025Abandon2220NoNo
18056166METHODS OF USING ANTI-PSGL-1 ANTIBODIES IN COMBINATION WITH JAK INHIBITORS TO TREAT T-CELL MEDIATED INFLAMMATORY DISEASES OR CANCERSNovember 2022January 2025Allow2611NoNo
17961827BLOOD-BASED TUMOR MUTATION BURDEN PREDICTS OVERALL SURVIVAL IN NSCLCOctober 2022December 2024Abandon2721NoNo
17935152ANTIBODIES THAT BIND TUMOR TISSUE FOR DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPYSeptember 2022December 2024Abandon2701NoNo
17877020USE OF IMMUNE CHECKPOINT INHIBITORS IN COMBINATION WITH ANTI-AGING DRUGS IN PREPARATION OF TUMOR TREATMENT PRODUCTSJuly 2022May 2025Abandon3330NoNo
17811282METHODS OF TREATING CANCERS HAVING A BRCA1 AND/OR BRCA2 MUTATION(S)July 2022November 2024Allow2930YesNo
17854739COMBINATION OF A SUBSTANCE MODULATING TUMOR IMMUNE MICROENVIRONMENT AND IMMUNOTHERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCERJune 2022February 2025Allow3221YesNo
17844814Bispecific Anti-CD28 X Anti-CD22 Antibodies and Uses ThereofJune 2022February 2025Abandon3211NoNo
17728265USE OF IL-1BETA BINDING ANTIBODIESApril 2022March 2025Abandon3411NoNo
17770039NOVEL ANTI-CD47 ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFApril 2022May 2025Allow3710YesNo
17610873DOSAGE REGIMES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A LAG-3/PD-L1 BISPECIFIC ANTIBODYNovember 2021May 2025Abandon4201NoNo
17437179BIO-RESPONSIVE ANTIBODY COMPLEXES FOR ENHANCED IMMUNOTHERAPYSeptember 2021April 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17411158Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR MutationsAugust 2021November 2024Allow3841YesNo
17426443TREATMENT OF NEUROTOXICITY AND/OR CYTOKINE RELEASE SYNDROMEJuly 2021November 2024Abandon4010NoNo
17422265ANTI-BETA 1 INTEGRIN HUMANIZED ANTIBODY, AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR TREATING CANCER, COMPRISING SAMEJuly 2021February 2025Allow4310NoNo
17323844BISPECIFIC AND TETRAVALENT CD137 AND FAP MOLECULES FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCERMay 2021August 2023Allow2711NoNo
17314946BISPECIFIC ANTIBODIES AGAINST CD3 AND CD20May 2021June 2025Allow4940NoYes
17287838METHODS OF TREATING NSCLC COMPRISING ADMINISTERING PLATINUM DOUBLET CHEMOTHERAPY FOLLOWED BY AN ANTI-PD-1 ANTIBODY AND AN ANTI-CTLA-4 ANTIBODYApril 2021December 2024Allow4411NoNo
17287727IVIG COMPOSITION AND METHOD OF TREATMENT OF ANTIBODY DEFICIENT PATIENTSApril 2021March 2025Abandon4711NoNo
17284208THERAPEUTIC ANTIBODY FRAGMENTS, METHODS OF MAKING, AND METHODS OF USEApril 2021July 2024Allow3910NoNo
17180492METHOD AND DEVICE FOR EARLY CANCER SCREENINGFebruary 2021August 2024Allow4221YesNo
16972724ANTIGEN BINDING CONSTRUCTS TO CD4December 2020March 2025Allow5211YesNo
17108771COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USE OF CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS IN NUCLEOTIDE REPEAT DISORDERSDecember 2020May 2025Allow5311YesNo
17017942COMBINATION THERAPY WITH TARGETED 4-1BB (CD137) AGONISTSSeptember 2020August 2024Allow4722NoNo
16902173Targeting Intracellular Target-Binding Determinants with Intracellular AntibodiesJune 2020June 2023Allow3641NoNo
16837477ANTI-CD73, ANTI-PD-L1 ANTIBODIES AND CHEMOTHERAPY FOR TREATING TUMORSApril 2020May 2025Abandon6060NoYes
16077720METHODS COMPRISING FIXED INTERMITTENT DOSING OF CEDIRANIBAugust 2018November 2024Abandon6070NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
0.7%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
0.6%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF works in Art Unit 1646 and has examined 32 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 59.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF's allowance rate of 59.4% places them in the 13% 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 ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF receive 1.88 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 59% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 13% 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 +52.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ALSOMAIRY, SARAH ABDOALATIF. This interview benefit is in the 95% 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, 31.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 54% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 75.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 93% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 11% 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 rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.

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 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 10.5% of allowed cases (in the 88% 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.