USPTO Examiner O'BRIEN LEA S - Art Unit 1646

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19063190COMPOSITIONS TARGETING PROSTATE-SPECIFIC MEMBRANE ANTIGEN AND METHODS FOR MAKING AND USING THE SAMEFebruary 2025June 2025Allow310NoNo
18140214Diabetes BiomarkersApril 2023May 2025Abandon2511NoNo
18295226T CELL RECEPTOR-DEFICIENT CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR T-CELLS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFApril 2023June 2025Allow2711NoNo
18109719ANTIBODIES THAT BIND HUMAN C6 AND USES THEREOFFebruary 2023August 2024Allow1801YesNo
17749362ANTIBODIES THAT BIND TO C1S AND USES THEREOFMay 2022December 2024Allow3111YesNo
17580974Compositions Comprising Apoptotic Signaling and Methods for Induction of Antigen-Specific ToleranceJanuary 2022June 2024Abandon2911NoNo
17457785DUAL CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR TARGETING EPCAM AND ICAM-1December 2021April 2025Abandon4021YesNo
17602434COMBINATION THERAPY WITH AN ANTI BCMA ANTIBODY AND A GAMMA SECRETASE INHIBITOROctober 2021July 2025Allow4510NoNo
17432920ARTIFICIAL IMMUNOSURVEILLANCE CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTOR AND CELLS EXPRESSING THE SAMEAugust 2021April 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17429876Treatment of Al Amyloidosis with the Combination of Monoclonal Antibodies Agains Immunoglobulin Light Chains and the CD38 Cell Membrane Molecule on Antibody-Producing And Other Immune CellsAugust 2021March 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17386197ANTIBODIES SPECIFIC TO CD44July 2021November 2024Allow4010NoNo
17424794DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ANTI-C5 ANTIBODIES FOR TREATMENT OF ATYPICAL HEMOLYTIC UREMIC SYNDROME (AHUS)July 2021June 2025Abandon4710NoNo
17421249ENGINEERED TUBEROUS SCLEROSIS COMPLEX 2 POLYPEPTIDESJuly 2021May 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17291069Combinations for Treating CancerMay 2021November 2024Abandon4210NoNo
17286206IDENTIFICATION AND TARGETING OF PATHOGENIC EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX FOR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF CANCER AND OTHER DISEASESApril 2021December 2024Abandon4410NoNo
17272176IMPROVED THERAPEUTIC T CELLFebruary 2021November 2024Abandon4510NoNo
17150973HYDROPHOBIC INTERACTION CHROMATOGRAPHY FOR VIRAL CLEARANCEJanuary 2021October 2024Allow4520YesNo
17259736METHOD FOR PRODUCING GAMMA DELTA T CELLSJanuary 2021April 2025Allow5121NoNo
17132726IL3Ralpha Antibodies and Uses ThereofDecember 2020August 2024Allow4420YesNo

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 O'BRIEN, LEA S - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner O'BRIEN, LEA S works in Art Unit 1646 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 44.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner O'BRIEN, LEA S's allowance rate of 44.4% places them in the 5% 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 O'BRIEN, LEA S receive 1.17 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 19% 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 O'BRIEN, LEA S is 44 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.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +49.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by O'BRIEN, LEA S. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% 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.
  • 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.