USPTO Examiner KUBELIK ANNE R - Art Unit 1663

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18907400CUCURBITA WITH DETERMINATE GROWTH HABITOctober 2024July 2025Abandon1000NoNo
18398443WHEAT VARIETY 6PPNK56BDecember 2023February 2026Allow2510NoNo
18398082PLANTS AND SEEDS OF CORN VARIETY CV988211December 2023March 2026Allow2610NoNo
18395506PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010458December 2023January 2026Allow2410NoNo
18389784PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010537December 2023December 2025Allow2410NoNo
18389766PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010538December 2023December 2025Allow2410NoNo
18521451SOYBEAN VARIETY 01098256November 2023July 2025Allow1910NoNo
18519520PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH010377November 2023November 2025Allow2410NoNo
18504766COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING PLASTID TRANSFORMATION EFFICIENCY IN HIGHER PLANTSNovember 2023March 2026Abandon2801NoNo
18329421HYBRID MAIZE VARIETY ARC-9913CJune 2023February 2026Abandon3210NoNo
18327710CUCUMBER HYBRID SVCS0017 AND PARENTS THEREOFJune 2023March 2026Abandon3310NoNo
18128111CUCUMBER HYBRID SVCS0951 AND PARENTS THEREOFMarch 2023January 2026Abandon3410NoNo
18170372COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING TOBACCO PLANTS AND PRODUCTS HAVING ALTERED ALKALOID LEVELSFebruary 2023July 2025Allow2910NoNo
18075969SOYBEAN VARIETY '21850087'December 2022February 2026Allow3811NoNo
18071140MELON VARIETY NUN 71550 MEMNovember 2022February 2026Allow4920NoNo
17989466SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094770November 2022January 2026Abandon3810NoNo
17986954Plants and Seeds of Corn Variety CV870012November 2022December 2025Allow3710NoNo
17987094Plants and Seeds of Corn Variety CV861286November 2022December 2025Allow3710NoNo
17987525SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094719November 2022February 2026Abandon3910NoNo
17987692Plants and Seeds of Corn Variety CV899591November 2022December 2025Allow3710NoNo
17984922SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094687November 2022January 2026Abandon3910NoNo
17981994SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094714November 2022January 2026Abandon3810NoNo
17979678SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094703November 2022March 2026Abandon4010NoNo
17979669SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094709November 2022February 2026Abandon3910NoNo
17979650SOYBEAN VARIETY 01094712November 2022January 2026Abandon3810NoNo
17956311SOYBEAN CULTIVAR 15150110September 2022October 2025Allow3710NoNo
17791253METHOD FOR PRODUCING BIOLUMINESCENT PLANTSJuly 2022February 2026Allow4350YesNo
17808571MAIZE HYBRID X00R820June 2022February 2026Abandon4420YesYes
17725629Hybrid Tomato Variety 'H2124'April 2022April 2025Abandon3510NoNo
17698244Garden Bean Variety Black DiamondMarch 2022March 2026Allow4830NoNo
17625904SYNTHETIC NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCES ENCODING INSECTICIDAL CRYSTAL PROTEIN AND USES THEREOFJanuary 2022November 2025Allow4641YesNo
17597380STERILE GENES AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS AND APPLICATIONS THEREOFJanuary 2022December 2025Allow4731NoNo
17608208COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR WEED CONTROLNovember 2021July 2025Allow4422YesNo
17451896MAIZE HYBRID X08P364October 2021February 2026Abandon5240YesNo
17430937Brassica Plants Producing Elevated Levels of Polyunsaturated Fatty AcidsAugust 2021March 2024Abandon3101NoNo
16683694COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING PLANT PESTSNovember 2019March 2021Allow1610NoNo
16322162INSECTICIDAL PROTEINSJanuary 2019September 2020Allow2030NoNo
16125913SYSTEM, METHOD, AND DEVICE FOR THE EXPRESSION OR REPRESSION OF PROTEINSSeptember 2018July 2020Abandon2210YesNo
15102257ENTOMOTOXIC POLYPEPTIDESJune 2016March 2018Allow2210NoNo
14687910INCREASING LEVELS OF NICOTINIC ALKALOIDS IN PLANTSApril 2015March 2017Allow2310NoNo
14553647Expression of the Human IGF-1 In Transgenic PlastidsNovember 2014December 2016Allow2420NoNo
14537661Expression of Human Interferon in Transgenic ChloroplastsNovember 2014February 2017Allow2720NoNo
14176612NOVEL VIP3 TOXINS AND METHODS OF USEFebruary 2014March 2016Allow2610NoNo
14109835In vivo Assembly of Transcription UnitsDecember 2013November 2016Allow3521NoNo
14036936MAIZE VARIETY HYBRID X03B495September 2013May 2016Allow3210NoNo
13903985PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH500611May 2013May 2016Allow3620NoNo
13893178PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH455765May 2013May 2016Allow3620NoNo
13892217PLANTS AND SEEDS OF HYBRID CORN VARIETY CH408889May 2013May 2016Allow3620NoNo
13373133Genomic plant sequences and uses thereofNovember 2011August 2016Allow5831YesNo
11888019DNA SEQUENCES FROM TCD GENOMIC REGION OF PHOTORHABDUS LUMINESCENSJuly 2007March 2010Allow3211NoNo
11594824PREVENTION OF BT RESISTANCE DEVELOPMENTNovember 2006October 2008Allow2320NoNo
11520036Increasing levels of nicotinic alkaloids in plantsSeptember 2006August 2016Allow6073YesNo
10580596INSECT RESISTANT COTTON PLANTS AND METHODS OF DETECTING THE SAMEMay 2006December 2008Allow3111NoNo
10617962A TOXIN GENE FROM THE BACTERIA PHOTORHABDUS LUMINESCENSJuly 2003June 2005Allow2300NoNo
10600070PLASTID DIVISION AND RELATED GENES AND PROTEINS, AND METHODS OF USEJune 2003May 2009Allow6061NoNo
10129458OsCcl promoter and methods of transforming monocot plants using the sameMay 2003May 2005Allow3710NoNo
10319111NOVEL PLANT TEST PROCEDURE TO DETECT NATURAL, SEMI-SYNTHETIC, SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS AND PHYSICAL STRESS FACTORS THROUGH EXPRESSION OF DISTINCT RESPONSESDecember 2002September 2005Allow3321YesNo
10262794NUCLEIC ACID ENCODING AN INSECTICIDAL PROTEIN TOXIN FROM PHOTORHABDUSOctober 2002March 2009Allow6071YesYes
10161195A DEHYDROASCORBATE REDUCTASE ("DHAR") GENES FROM TRITICUM AESTIVUM AND THEIR USE TO MODULATE ASCORBIC ACID LEVELS IN PLANTSMay 2002November 2004Allow3011YesNo
10118708PLANT CELLS ENCODING A PEPIDE MIMOTOPE TO MYCOTOXIN DEOXYNIVALENOL AND USES THEREOFApril 2002April 2007Allow6041NoYes
10101736COTTON PLANTS WITH IMPROVED COTTON FIBER CHARACTERISTICS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING COTTON FIBERS FROM THESE COTTON PLANTSMarch 2002December 2005Allow4540YesYes
10091534INBRED CANTALOUPE LINE 442March 2002November 2004Allow3230NoNo
10028921METHOD FOR ENHANCEMENT OF NATURALLY OCCURRING CYTOPLASMIC MALE STERILITY AND FOR RESTORATION OF MALE FERTILITY AND USES THEREOF IN HYBRID CROP PRODUCTIONDecember 2001September 2004Allow3331YesNo
10037311XYLOGLUCAN FUCOSYLTRANSFERASESNovember 2001February 2004Allow2721NoNo
09882434DNA ENCODING A MACADAMIA INTEGRIFOLIA ANTI-MICROBIAL PROTEIN, CONSTRUCTS COMPRISING THE SAME, AND PLANT MATERIAL COMPRISING THE CONTRUCTSJune 2001November 2004Allow4121YesNo
09818921METHOD OF PREPARING FERTILE TRANSGENIC CORN PLANTS BY MICROPROJECTILES BOMBARDINDMarch 2001July 2005Allow5251NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KUBELIK, ANNE R.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
8
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(25.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
6
(75.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
33.7%
Lower 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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner KUBELIK, ANNE R - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KUBELIK, ANNE R works in Art Unit 1663 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 91.2%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 33 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KUBELIK, ANNE R's allowance rate of 91.2% places them in the 76% 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 KUBELIK, ANNE R receive 2.38 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 68% 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 KUBELIK, ANNE R is 33 months. This places the examiner in the 46% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -13.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KUBELIK, ANNE R. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 23.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 68.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 91% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 114.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 94% 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 17.6% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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 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

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • 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.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • 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.