USPTO Examiner KEOGH MATTHEW R - Art Unit 1663

Examiner KEOGH, MATTHEW R - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KEOGH, MATTHEW R works in Art Unit 1663 and has examined 663 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 82.7%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 23 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KEOGH, MATTHEW R's allowance rate of 82.7% places them in the 56% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by KEOGH, MATTHEW R receive 1.63 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 32% 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 KEOGH, MATTHEW R is 23 months. This places the examiner in the 85% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +8.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KEOGH, MATTHEW R. This interview benefit is in the 38% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 32.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 63.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 42.9% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% 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 0.2% of allowed cases (in the 51% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 3% 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

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