Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18792921 | IgE BINDING PROTEINS AND USES THEREOF | August 2024 | December 2024 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18618634 | METHODS OF TREATING COMPLEMENT-MEDIATED DISEASE | March 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18570249 | ANTI-PDL1 ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOF | December 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 15 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18272337 | PROTOCOL TO MINIMIZE CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR NEPHROTOXICITY | July 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 22 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18210250 | NANOCOMPOSITE INCLUDING ABSCISIC ACID-LOADED COLLAGEN NANOPARTICLES | June 2023 | June 2024 | Abandon | 12 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17821664 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR T CELL ENGINEERING | August 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 17818397 | TREATMENT OF ATOPIC DERMATITIS | August 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17766597 | ANTIBODIES HAVING SPECIFICITY FOR NECTIN-4 AND USES THEREOF | April 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17565942 | FUSION PROTEINS COMPRISING A BINDING PROTEIN AND AN INTERLEUKIN-15 POLYPEPTIDE HAVING A REDUCED AFFINITY FOR IL15Ra AND THERAPEUTIC USES THEREOF | December 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17480946 | Treatment Of Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH) With IL-27 Antibody | September 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17439945 | AQUEOUS FORMULATIONS OF TNF-ALPHA ANTIBODIES IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS | September 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17435380 | ANTI-SIRP-ALPHA ANTIBODIES | August 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17432819 | METHOD AND COMPOSITION FOR PREDICTING LONG-TERM SURVIVAL IN CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY | August 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17418624 | FGF21 VARIANT POLYPEPTIDE MOLECULES AND APPLICATION THEREOF | June 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17299428 | PKS-ISLAND POSITIVE E. COLI AS MARKER OF NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO ANTI-PD1 THERAPY IN COLORECTAL CANCER | June 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17286759 | Anti-CD79b Antibodies, Drug Conjugates, and Applications Thereof | April 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17280035 | COMBINATION OF A PD-1 ANTAGONIST, AN ATR INHIBITOR AND A PLATINATING AGENT FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER | March 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17277511 | ANTI-HUMAN CD45RC ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOF | March 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17204526 | GENETICALLY MODIFIED MAJOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY COMPLEX MICE | March 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17275986 | BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY TARGETING IL-1R1 AND NLPR3 | March 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17275995 | BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY TARGETING IL-1R1 AND NLPR3 | March 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17267157 | Anti-IL1RAP Antibody Compositions | February 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17266349 | MULTI-SPECIFIC BINDING PROTEINS THAT BIND BCMA, NKG2D AND CD16, AND METHODS OF USE | February 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16982762 | METHOD OF TREATING ASTHMA | September 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16969740 | ENGINEERED NANOVESICLES AS CHECKPOINT BLOCKADE FOR CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY | August 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16804882 | EOSINOPHILS ALLEVIATE LUNG ALLOGRAFT REJECTION THROUGH THEIR MODULATION OF CD8+ T CELLS | February 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16622259 | TARGETED HD5 ANTIBODY AND ASSAY METHODS FOR DIAGNOSING AND TREATING INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE | December 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN works in Art Unit 1646 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 64.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.
Examiner HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN's allowance rate of 64.0% places them in the 17% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN receive 1.48 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 35% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +59.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HOLTZMAN, KATHERINE ANN. This interview benefit is in the 97% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 40.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 89% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 57.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 79% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 85% 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 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.
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'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.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
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.