USPTO Examiner GUSTILO ESTELLA M - Art Unit 1646

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18919082COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING CANCEROctober 2024June 2025Allow811NoNo
18897951BISPECIFIC ANTIBODIES TARGETING PD1 AND VEGFSeptember 2024June 2025Allow810NoNo
18660672ANTIBODIES CAPABLE OF BINDING TO OX40, VARIANTS THEREOF AND USES THEREOFMay 2024April 2025Allow1111NoNo
18656081ANTIBODIES THAT BIND PSMA AND GAMMA-DELTA T CELL RECEPTORSMay 2024June 2025Allow1310NoNo
17993654Methods for Treating Cancer with Bispecific Anti-CD3 x MUC16 Antibodies and Anti-CTLA-4 AntibodiesNovember 2022June 2025Abandon3130YesNo
16972895SET OF REAGENTS FOR DETECTING A MARKER OF EPITHELIAL CARCINOMASNovember 2021June 2025Abandon5410NoNo
17434286THERAPEUTIC ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINS SPECIFIC FOR CD93 AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFAugust 2021April 2025Allow4410NoNo
17428650METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING CANCERAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4210NoNo
17380445PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING ANTIBODY, DEVICE COMPRISING SAME, AND USE THEREOFJuly 2021February 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17380483PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING ANTIBODY, DEVICE COMPRISING SAME, AND USE THEREOFJuly 2021March 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17422186ANTI-B7S1 POLYPEPTIDES AND THEIR USEJuly 2021March 2025Allow4510NoNo
17421770PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING ANTIBODY, DEVICE COMPRISING SAME, AND USE THEREOFJuly 2021February 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17420537METHODS AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR ENHANCING CD8+ T CELL-DEPENDENT IMMUNE RESPONSES IN SUBJECTS SUFFERING FROM CANCERJuly 2021April 2025Abandon4620NoNo
17418906PATHOGEN BINDING PROTEINSJune 2021June 2025Allow4820YesNo
17415993CLAZAKIZUMAB IN THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC ANTIBODY-MEDIATED REJECTION OF ORGAN TRANSPLANTJune 2021May 2025Abandon4720NoNo
17350995ANTIBODIES SPECIFIC TO MUC18June 2021February 2025Allow4411NoNo
1730691314-3-3 ETA Antibodies and Uses Thereof for the Diagnosis and Treatment of ArthritisMay 2021December 2024Allow4331NoNo
17287164METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR TREATING CANCERApril 2021November 2024Allow4310YesNo
17267115ANTI-IL-1beta ANTIBODY AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION THEREOF AND USE OF SAMEFebruary 2021February 2025Allow4820YesNo
17258245CO-RECEPTOR SYSTEMS FOR TREATING INFECTIOUS DISEASESJanuary 2021December 2024Allow4821NoNo
17251397METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR TARGETING CANCER CELLSDecember 2020October 2024Allow4611YesNo
17048748T CELL RECEPTORS WITH MAGE-B2 SPECIFICITY AND USES THEREOFOctober 2020September 2024Allow4711NoNo
16999823METHODS FOR SCAR PREVENTIONAugust 2020November 2024Abandon5011NoNo
16969056CD83-BINDING CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORSAugust 2020June 2025Allow5821YesNo
16651531METHOD FOR DEPLETING CYTOTOXIC T CELLS USING AN ANTI-LAG-3 ANTIBODY COMPOSITIONMarch 2020July 2024Allow5141YesNo
16291207Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes and Other Conditions Using the Gut MicrobiomeMarch 2019September 2021Abandon3121NoNo

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 GUSTILO, ESTELLA M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GUSTILO, ESTELLA M works in Art Unit 1646 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 54.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GUSTILO, ESTELLA M's allowance rate of 54.5% places them in the 10% 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 GUSTILO, ESTELLA M receive 1.64 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by GUSTILO, ESTELLA M is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 2% 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 +45.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GUSTILO, ESTELLA M. 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, 12.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 16% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

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 82% 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 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:

  • 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.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • 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.