USPTO Examiner GARYU LIANKO G - Art Unit 1654

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18595656METHODS OF TREATING OR PREVENTING STENT THROMBOSISMarch 2024May 2025Abandon1410NoNo
18413260TREATMENT FOR DIABETES IN PATIENTS WITH INSUFFICIENT GLYCEMIC CONTROL DESPITE THERAPY WITH AN ORAL ANTIDIABETIC DRUGJanuary 2024April 2025Abandon1410NoNo
18407324CNP PRODRUGS WITH LARGE CARRIER MOIETIESJanuary 2024March 2025Abandon1410NoNo
18354372PROTEINS FOR THE TREATMENT OF EPITHELIAL BARRIER FUNCTION DISORDERSJuly 2023August 2024Allow1310YesNo
18323208ELP FUSION PROTEINS FOR CONTROLLED AND SUSTAINED RELEASEMay 2023March 2025Abandon2210NoNo
17810513PEPTIDES AND METHODS FOR TREATING DISEASEJuly 2022October 2024Allow2730NoYes
17713809CYCLIN G1 INHIBITORS AND RELATED METHODS OF TREATING CANCERApril 2022August 2024Allow2811YesNo
17698353DERIVATIVES OF DOLAPROINE-DOLAISOLEUINE PEPTIDESMarch 2022December 2025Allow4521NoNo
17641779METHODS OF TREATMENT RELATED TO COMPLEXES OF VON WILLEBRAND FACTOR AND COMPLEMENT C1QMarch 2022June 2025Abandon3901NoNo
17636839UBE3A FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANGELMAN SYNDROMEFebruary 2022October 2025Allow4412YesNo
17631121SS-31 FOR THE PREVENTION AND/OR TREATMENT OF ANEURYSMJanuary 2022May 2025Abandon4010NoNo
17626675FUSION TOXIN PROTEINS FOR TREATMENT OF DISEASES RELATED TO CMV INFECTIONSJanuary 2022May 2025Abandon4010NoNo
17609784Ras INHIBITORY PEPTIDENovember 2021March 2025Abandon4001NoNo
17603080AMANTADINE BINDING PROTEINOctober 2021March 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17409692METHOD FOR PRODUCING PEPTIDE COMPOUND, PROTECTIVE GROUP-FORMING REAGENT, AND AROMATIC HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDAugust 2021December 2024Allow4021YesNo
17420622METHODS OF PROMOTING REMYELINATIONJuly 2021November 2025Abandon5321NoNo
17314550METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING VIRAL OR VIRALLY-INDUCED CONDITIONSMay 2021April 2025Abandon4710NoNo
17277468MODIFIED CHANNEL RHODOPSINMarch 2021December 2024Allow4520YesNo
17100376Shape Memory Silk MaterialsNovember 2020January 2025Abandon5020NoYes
16866764Dry Growth Hormone Composition Transiently Linked to a Polymer CarrierMay 2020May 2024Allow4950YesNo
16010902PREPARATION OF TEMPLATES FOR NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCINGJune 2018November 2019Allow1711NoNo
15472555ARRAYS OF MICROPARTICLES AND METHODS OF PREPARATION THEREOFMarch 2017March 2018Allow1100NoNo
15389802Modified Apidaecin Derivatives as Antibiotic PeptidesDecember 2016May 2019Allow2921YesNo
15321561METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR INHIBITING GROWTH AND EPITHELIAL TO MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION (EMT) IN CANCER CELLSDecember 2016July 2019Allow3121YesNo
15306266AGENTS AND METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF PATHOGENSOctober 2016October 2018Allow2411YesNo
15258786METHOD OF AMELIORATING OR PREVENTING THE WORSENING OR THE PROGRESSION OF SYMPTOMS OF BPHSeptember 2016August 2019Allow3641NoNo
15217326NOVEL JNK INHIBITOR MOLECULES FOR TREATMENT OF VARIOUS DISEASESJuly 2016August 2019Allow3730YesNo
14943752Compositions and Methods for Preventing or Treating Diseases, Conditions, or Processes Characterized by Aberrant Fibroblast Proliferation and Extracellular Matrix DepositionNovember 2015July 2019Allow4441YesNo
13984715HYDROPHOBIC MODIFIED PEPTIDES FOR LIVER SPECIFIC DIAGNOSISAugust 2014March 2019Allow6051YesNo
14122956METHOD OF TREATING DISORDERS USING A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION OF OLIGOPEPTIDESJanuary 2014November 2018Allow6031YesNo
13555595NANOPARTICULATE CELL CULTURE SURFACEJuly 2012March 2013Allow810NoNo
13309734Peptides and peptide compositions having osteoinductive activityDecember 2011May 2014Allow3011YesNo
12949104METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR SOFT TISSUE REPAIRNovember 2010May 2014Allow4231YesNo
12910468Arrays of microparticles and methods of preparation thereofOctober 2010May 2012Abandon1911YesNo
12746996Polypeptides, Cyclic Polypeptides and Pharmaceutical Comprising Thereof for Non Invasive Specific Imaging of FibrosisAugust 2010February 2013Allow3210YesNo
12810470TOPICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR DELIVERY OF PROTEINS AND PEPTIDESJune 2010November 2012Abandon2801NoNo
12747435CROSS-LINKED HYDROGEL CONTAINING AN ACTIVE SUBSTANCEJune 2010January 2013Abandon3101NoNo
12747013ASSAY SYSTEM AND METHODJune 2010September 2012Allow2711NoNo
12786287APPARATUS FOR POLYMER SYNTHESISMay 2010February 2013Abandon3321NoNo
12744390FLEXIBLE EXTRACTION METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SEQUENCE-SPECIFIC MOLECULE LIBRARIESMay 2010March 2012Abandon2101NoNo
12440832Methods and Devices for Detecting Structural Changes in a Molecule Measuring Electrochemical ImpedanceApril 2010October 2012Abandon4321NoNo
12757499HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING OF ION CHANNELSApril 2010October 2012Allow3021YesNo
12730043Treatment of Cancers with Immunostimulatory HIV TAT Derivative PolypeptidesMarch 2010May 2013Allow3811YesNo
12683662DOSING FORMS AND REGIMENS COMPRISING 3-[(R)-2-(N,N-DIMETHYLAMINO)ETHYLTHIO-SAR]-4-(GAMMAHYDROXYMETHYLLEUCINE)CYCLOSPORINEJanuary 2010March 2013Abandon3811NoNo
12683841COMPOSITIONS FOR ENHANCING NAIL GROWTHJanuary 2010February 2013Abandon3711NoNo
12664510APOA-1 PEPTIDE MIMETICSDecember 2009February 2013Abandon3801NoNo
11989901ASSAYS FOR S100 INHIBITORSDecember 2009May 2012Allow5231YesNo
12629068HAIR-BINDING PEPTIDESDecember 2009November 2012Abandon3601YesNo
12626277NANOPARTICULATE CELL CULTURE SURFACENovember 2009October 2012Allow3411NoNo
12528926TEMPLATE-FIXED PEPTIDOMIMETICSOctober 2009November 2012Allow3810NoNo
12596600IMMOBILIZED PROTEIN THAT IS IMMOBILIZED ONLY AT ITS AMINO TERMINUS IN ORIENTATION-CONTROLLED MANNEROctober 2009November 2012Abandon3711NoNo
12310279LYSINE ACETYLATION SITESSeptember 2009September 2012Abandon4301NoNo
12547658Method for Decreasing Interference in Results of Immunochemical MethodsAugust 2009March 2012Abandon3020YesNo
12547294ORAL MEDICATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF HEMORRHOIDS AND METHOD OF USEAugust 2009September 2012Abandon3611NoNo
12503260DETECHIP: MOLECULAR COLOR AND FLUORESCENT SENSORY ARRAYS FOR SMALL MOLECULESJuly 2009August 2012Abandon3701NoNo
12477186Methods, systems, and kits for identification of osteoinductive peptidesJune 2009February 2013Abandon4521NoNo
12085785Identification of Genetic Polymorphic Variants Associated With Somatosensory Disorders and Methods of Using the SameJune 2009January 2013Abandon5521YesNo
12446682METHOD FOR PROFILING KINASE INHIBITORSApril 2009December 2012Abandon4421NoNo
12423728QUANTITATIVE MICROARRAY OF INTACT GLYCOLIPID CD1D INTERACTION AND CORRELATION WITH CELL-BASED CYTOKINE PRODUCTIONApril 2009October 2012Allow4221YesYes
12443623PROTEIN APPROPRIATE FOR ORIENTATION-CONTROLLED IMMOBILIZATION AND IMMOBILIZATION CARRIER ON WHICH THE PROTEINS ARE IMMOBILIZEDMarch 2009October 2012Abandon4322NoNo
12441520BIOMOLECULE DETECTION REAGENT AND METHOD FOR DETECTING BIOMOLECULE USING THE SAMEMarch 2009August 2012Abandon4130NoNo
12351465FUNCTIONAL PROTEIN ARRAYSJanuary 2009March 2012Abandon3801NoNo
12159977USE OF POLYMERS FOR INCREASING THE SIGNAL INTENSITY WHEN CARRYING OUT DETECTION REACTIONSDecember 2008June 2012Abandon4721YesNo
11989169Preparation of templates for nucleic acid sequencingDecember 2008May 2012Abandon5211NoNo
12329527METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ENHANCED BIOCOMPATIBILITYDecember 2008March 2012Abandon4001NoNo
12325462MULTI-MODE MICROARRAY APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONCURRENT AND SEQUENTIAL BIOLOGICAL ASSAYSDecember 2008June 2012Abandon4211NoNo
12264241DNA MICRO-ARRAY HAVING STANDARD PROBE AND KIT INCLUDING THE ARRAYNovember 2008August 2012Abandon4520NoNo
12258139METHOD OF PREPARING A SUBSTRATE WITH A COMPOSITION INCLUDING AN ORGANOBORANE INITIATOROctober 2008October 2012Allow4811YesNo
10585373Modified Molecular ArraysOctober 2008October 2012Abandon6021NoNo
11989838Gene involved in occurrence/recurrence of hcv-positive hepatocelluar carcinomaAugust 2008August 2012Abandon5422NoNo
12221750Isolation of nucleic acids molecules using modified solid supportsAugust 2008February 2012Abandon4201NoNo
12153911Method for biomolecule immobilizationMay 2008December 2012Abandon5531NoNo
11947724LOCKED NUCLEIC ACID REAGENTS FOR LABELLING NUCLEIC ACIDSNovember 2007June 2012Allow6031YesNo
11262300DNA-templated combinatorial library device and method for useOctober 2005June 2012Abandon6032YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GARYU, LIANKO G.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
0.8%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(33.3%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(66.7%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
50.6%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner GARYU, LIANKO G - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GARYU, LIANKO G works in Art Unit 1654 and has examined 62 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 41.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GARYU, LIANKO G's allowance rate of 41.9% places them in the 8% 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 GARYU, LIANKO G receive 1.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 30% 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 GARYU, LIANKO G is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 23% 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 +57.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GARYU, LIANKO G. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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, 29.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 56% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 60.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 85% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 14% 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 rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 83.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 86% 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 3.2% of allowed cases (in the 80% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 7.7% of allowed cases (in the 86% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

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.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.