USPTO Examiner EPPS SMITH JANET L - Art Unit 1646

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18777688METHOD FOR IMPROVING CELL ADHESION WITH SMECTITE CLAYJuly 2024October 2024Allow210NoNo
18777712CELL ADHESION METHOD WITH SODIUM MONTMORILLONITEJuly 2024September 2024Allow210NoNo
18777706METHOD OF INCREASING CELL ADHESION WITH PALYGORSKITEJuly 2024September 2024Allow210NoNo
17932836NOVEL PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION OF PEPTIDES FOR USE IN IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST BREAST CANCER AND OTHER CANCERSSeptember 2022June 2025Abandon3310NoNo
17717254ANTIBODY POLYPEPTIDES AND USES THEREOFApril 2022June 2025Allow3811NoNo
17064505COMPOSITIONS FOR THE DELIVERY OF tRNA AS NANOPARTICLES AND METHODS OF USE THEREWITHOctober 2020January 2025Abandon5231YesNo
16611818A Cell Model For In Vitro Evaluation Of Compound-Induced Skin Sensitization And A Constructing Method ThereforNovember 2019August 2024Allow5720NoNo
15775791TRANSDUCTION BUFFERMay 2018June 2024Allow6051YesNo
15652000CELLS GENETICALLY MODIFIED TO COMPRISE PANCREATIC ISLET GLUCOKINASE AND USES THEREOFJuly 2017May 2020Allow3420YesNo
14247145CONTROLLABLE ON-OFF METHOD FOR FISH REPRODUCTIONApril 2014September 2015Allow1710NoNo
13835806COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING IMMUNE RESPONSES TO VACCINESMarch 2013April 2015Allow2530YesNo
13709005LIPOSOMES WITH IMPROVED DRUG RETENTION FOR TREATMENT OF CANCERDecember 2012December 2013Allow1220YesNo
13698804CATIONIC LIPIDSNovember 2012January 2014Allow1420NoNo
13566892COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING IMMUNE RESPONSES TO VACCINESAugust 2012December 2014Allow2840YesNo
13321093POLYNUCLEOTIDE DELIVERING COMPLEX FOR TARGET CELLNovember 2011February 2014Allow2710NoNo
13296163NUCLEIC ACID LIGANDS TO LL37November 2011May 2014Abandon3020YesNo
13124434METHOD FOR INTRODUCING GENE INTO CELL, AND COMPOSITION FOR USE IN THE METHODApril 2011November 2012Allow1920YesNo
12747123ACOUSTICALLY SENSITIVE DRUG DELIVERY PARTICLES COMPRISING NON-LAMELLAR FORMING LIPIDSSeptember 2010December 2013Allow4230YesNo
12311554ARTIFICIALLY SYNTHESIZED PEPTIDEJanuary 2010March 2012Allow3510NoNo
12513237METHOD OF PRODUCING MICROCAPSULESJanuary 2010August 2014Allow6030NoNo
12691566POLYMERIC CARRIER FOR DELIVERY OF SMALL INTERFERING RNAJanuary 2010July 2011Allow1810NoNo
12573281REMEDY FOR THE TREATMENT OF CARDIO-VASCULAR DISEASES OR DISORDERSOctober 2009October 2014Allow6041YesNo
12249676LNA OLIGONUCLEOTIDES AND THE TREATMENT OF CANCEROctober 2008January 2012Allow3930NoNo
12163317EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFJune 2008September 2010Allow2710NoNo
12163512EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFJune 2008August 2010Allow2610NoNo
12163337EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFJune 2008November 2010Allow2810NoNo
12163564EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFJune 2008March 2010Allow2100NoNo
12163371EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFJune 2008September 2010Allow2710NoNo
11886113SKIN EQUIVALENT CULTUREJune 2008November 2011Allow5010NoNo
11951800Medicaments for Chemotherapeutic Treatment of DiseaseDecember 2007August 2013Allow6040YesNo
11939487Bioactive Agent-Loaded Heart-Targeting NanoparticlesNovember 2007December 2013Allow6020NoYes
11666736Liposome And Method For Injecting Substance To Cell Using This LiposomeNovember 2007December 2014Allow6041YesYes
11838589METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR ALTERING MUCUS SECRETIONAugust 2007January 2011Allow4111NoNo
11777715GENERATION OF ELECTROPOTENTIAL USING BACTERIAL CULTUREJuly 2007March 2010Allow3220YesNo
10573385PROCESS FOR PRODUCING CMP-N-ACETYLNEURAMINIC ACIDMay 2007March 2013Allow6060YesNo
11622156CONJUGATES AND PROCESSES FOR THEIR PREPARATION AND THEIR USE FOR TRANSPORTING MOLECULES ACROSS BIOLOGICAL MEMBRANESJanuary 2007December 2012Allow6031NoYes
11641551IMMUNOSTIMULATORY ACTIVITY OF IMMUNE MODULATORY OLIGONUCLEOTIDES (IMOTM) CONTAINING DIFFERENT LENGTHS OF PALINDROMIC SEGMENTSDecember 2006February 2010Allow6011NoNo
10558216COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE MODULATION OF THE EXPRESSION OF B7 PROTEINMay 2006December 2010Allow6031YesNo
10560932SPHINGOLIPIDS POLYALKYLAMINE CONJUGATES FOR USE IN TRANSFECTIONMay 2006March 2012Allow6031NoNo
10577447ANTITUMOR MEDICINEApril 2006October 2009Allow4240NoNo
11396743DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR NUCLEIC ACIDSApril 2006January 2010Allow4611YesNo
11396081POLYARGININE-MODIFIED LIPOSOME HAVING NUCLEAR ENTRY ABILITYMarch 2006August 2013Allow6081YesYes
11367228POLYMERIC CARRIER FOR DELIVERY OF SMALL INTERFERING RNAMarch 2006January 2010Allow4641NoNo
10570511Novel Vector And Utilization Of The SameFebruary 2006December 2012Allow6071YesNo
10558538METHODS OF DIAGNOSING, PROGNOSING AND TREATING BREAST CANCERFebruary 2006August 2009Allow4411YesNo
11329230EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFJanuary 2006June 2009Allow4121YesNo
10938184MODIFIED OLIGONUCLEOTIDES FOR TELOMERASE INHIBITIONSeptember 2004October 2008Allow4920YesNo
10901471PENTOSE-FERMENTATIVE TRANSFORMED ZYMOBACTER MICROORGANISMSJuly 2004February 2009Allow6021YesNo
10883009DSRNA INDUCED SPECIFIC AND NON-SPECIFIC IMMUNITY IN CRUSTACEANS AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES AND BIODELIVERY VEHICLES FOR USE THEREINJuly 2004September 2013Allow6081YesYes
10478771IMMUNOSTIMULATORY OLIGODEOXYNUCLEIC MOLECULESNovember 2003August 2010Allow6041NoNo
10641962OLIGONUCLEOTIDE COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE MODULATION OF THE EXPRESSION OF B7 PROTEINAugust 2003February 2007Allow4211YesNo
10297788POSITIVELY-CHARGED PEPTIDE NUCLEIC ACID ANALOGS WITH IMPROVED PROPERTIESJune 2003November 2009Allow6060YesNo
10442435CHOLESTEROL AND HEDGEHOG SIGNALINGMay 2003September 2011Allow6081NoYes
10302814METHOD OF TREATING HEPATITIS DELTA VIRUS INFECTIONNovember 2002November 2008Allow6041NoYes
10194213PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION FOR BORON NEUTRON CAPTURE THERAPY CONTAINING TRIPHENYLBOROXINJuly 2002September 2005Allow3810YesNo
10189360COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING NUCLEIC ACIDS AND LIGANDS FOR THERAPEUTIC TREATMENTJuly 2002June 2006Allow4720YesNo
10158761DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR NUCLEIC ACIDSMay 2002October 2005Allow4121YesNo
10089312LIPOSOME-ENTRAPPED DNA ORAL VACCINESMarch 2002September 2005Allow4221NoNo
10102094NUCLEOZYMESMarch 2002February 2006Allow4700YesNo
10031021NON-HUMAN GENETICALLY MODIFIED MAMMAL LACKING THE ALPHA-FETOPROTEINMarch 2002October 2005Allow4531YesNo
10082973TISSUE-SPECIFIC AND TARGET RNA-SPECIFIC RIBOZYMESFebruary 2002December 2009Allow6090YesYes
09958206EUBACTERIAL TMRNA SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFFebruary 2002September 2005Allow4722NoNo
10060009COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT AND REPAIR OF DEFECTS OR LESIONS IN ARTICULAR CARTILAGE USING SYNOVIAL-DERIVED TISSUE OR CELLSJanuary 2002February 2008Abandon6061YesYes
09914020METHOD AND COMPOSITIONS FOR ALTERING MUCUS SECRETIONDecember 2001April 2007Allow6051YesNo
10007805COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE THERAPY AND DIAGNOSIS OF BREAST CANCERDecember 2001January 2008Allow6071YesYes
10022127HUMAN SUPPRESSOR TRNA OLIGONUCLEOTIDES AND METHODS OF USE FOR SAMEOctober 2001October 2005Allow4840YesNo
09920033ANTISENSE MODULATION OF APOLIPOPROTEIN B EXPRESSIONAugust 2001May 2010Allow60111YesYes
09900355MEDICAMENTS FOR CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC TREATMENT OF DISEASEJuly 2001August 2009Allow60111NoNo
09753169OLIGONUCLEOTIDE INHIBITORS OF BCL-XLJanuary 2001February 2006Allow6051YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner EPPS-SMITH, JANET L.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
91.4%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
13
Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(23.1%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
10
(76.9%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
27.6%
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, 23.1% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

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

Examiner EPPS-SMITH, JANET L - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner EPPS-SMITH, JANET L works in Art Unit 1646 and has examined 66 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner EPPS-SMITH, JANET L's allowance rate of 93.9% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by EPPS-SMITH, JANET L receive 3.21 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 EPPS-SMITH, JANET L is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 1% 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 -4.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by EPPS-SMITH, JANET L. This interview benefit is in the 3% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 19.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 12% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 44.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 62% 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.

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 91.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 82% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 90.9% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 71.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 88% 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 36.4% of allowed cases (in the 100% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

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:

  • 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.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.