USPTO Examiner GURLEY JAMI MICHELLE - Art Unit 1647

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
192752035T4 BINDING POLYPEPTIDES AND USES THEREOFJuly 2025February 2026Allow710NoNo
18099765PYRIDINIUM SALTS, METHODS OF MAKING, AND METHODS OF USEJanuary 2023February 2026Abandon3710NoNo
18082871TREATMENT OF RESPIRATORY VIRUS INFECTION BY MODULATION OF THE N-GLYCOSYLATION PATHWAYDecember 2022November 2025Abandon3510NoNo
17937428IMMUNOCYTOKINE CONTAINING IL-21R MUTEINSeptember 2022March 2026Abandon4110NoNo
17944604METHODS AND USE FOR BIOENGINEERING ENUCLEATED CELLSSeptember 2022December 2025Abandon3920NoNo
17822019METHODS FOR TREATING ANOREXIA NERVOSA AND RELATED CONDITIONS BY ADMINISTERING A LEPTIN RECEPTOR AGONISTAugust 2022March 2026Allow4220YesNo
17880141METHODS AND USE FOR BIOENGINEERING ENUCLEATED CELLSAugust 2022December 2025Abandon4010NoNo
17777977Prame TCR Receptors And Uses ThereofMay 2022January 2026Allow4420NoNo
17771192METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION OF IL-2 RECEPTOR AGONISTSApril 2022December 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17766746COMPOSITION COMPRISING INHIBITOR AGAINST EXPRESSION OF EXOSOMAL PD-L1 AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT FOR ENHANCING ANTICANCER EFFECTApril 2022November 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17280239ANTIGEN-BINDING MOLECULE COMPRISING ALTERED ANTIBODY VARIABLE REGIONMarch 2021June 2025Allow5010NoNo
17042610IL-2 ConjugatesSeptember 2020October 2025Allow6031YesNo

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 GURLEY, JAMI MICHELLE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GURLEY, JAMI MICHELLE works in Art Unit 1647 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GURLEY, JAMI MICHELLE's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% 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 GURLEY, JAMI MICHELLE receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 50% 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 GURLEY, JAMI MICHELLE is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 0% 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 +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GURLEY, JAMI MICHELLE. This interview benefit is in the 12% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 96% 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.

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:

  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • 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.