USPTO Examiner SIFFORD JEFFREY MARK - Art Unit 1648

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17138065COMPUTATIONAL REDUCTION VACCINE FOR COVID-19 BIN100December 2020June 2024Allow4211YesNo
16973731VACCINATION AGAINST PORCINE CIRCOVIRUSESDecember 2020October 2023Allow3420NoNo
17058020Bacteriophage Compositions and Kits and Related MethodsNovember 2020January 2024Allow3822NoNo
17051019MULTIANALYTE IMMUNOASSAY FOR ZIKA VIRUS AND USES THEREOFOctober 2020July 2023Abandon3301NoNo
16971761HUMAN JAPANESE ENCEPHALITIS VIRUS ANTIBODIES AND METHODS OF USE THEREFORAugust 2020December 2023Allow4011YesNo
16966588EFFICIENT INFECTION OF PRIMARY KERATINOCYTES BY HPV16July 2020April 2024Abandon4410NoNo
16966248Binding Molecule Having Neutralizing Activity Against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome-CoronavirusJuly 2020July 2023Abandon3501NoNo
16965549GROUP B ADENOVIRUS-CONTAINING FORMULATIONJuly 2020January 2024Allow4210YesNo
16961609EFFICIENT CELL CULTURE SYSTEM FOR HEPATITIS C VIRUS GENOTYPE 6AJuly 2020March 2024Allow4410YesNo
16753322GENE THERAPIES FOR LYSOSOMAL DISORDERSApril 2020January 2024Allow4501NoNo

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 SIFFORD, JEFFREY MARK - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SIFFORD, JEFFREY MARK works in Art Unit 1648 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 70.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SIFFORD, JEFFREY MARK's allowance rate of 70.0% places them in the 33% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SIFFORD, JEFFREY MARK receive 0.90 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 5% 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 SIFFORD, JEFFREY MARK is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 18% 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 +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SIFFORD, JEFFREY MARK. 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, 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.

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 98% 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.

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:

  • 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.
  • 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.