USPTO Examiner ALLEN MICHAEL D - Art Unit 1671

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18891555MULTIPLEX CELLULAR ASSAYS FOR SCREENING AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERED CELLSSeptember 2024December 2025Abandon1511NoNo
18309452USES FOR AND ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE INCLUDING HER2 DIMERIZATION INHIBITOR PERTUZUMABApril 2023September 2025Allow2940YesYes
18178854ANTI-TMEM-180 ANTIBODY, ANTICANCER AGENT, AND TEST METHOD FOR CANCERMarch 2023February 2026Abandon3510NoNo
17932147ANTIBODIES AGAINST SARS-COV-2 AND METHODS OF USING THE SAMESeptember 2022March 2026Abandon4210NoNo
17872494Anti-TIGIT AntibodiesJuly 2022September 2025Allow3830NoNo
17283690Methods of Treating Rheumatoid ArthritisApril 2021January 2026Abandon5721NoNo
17054043METHOD FOR PRODUCING T CELLS MODIFIED BY CHIMERIC ANTIGEN RECEPTORNovember 2020January 2026Allow6041YesNo
16999578ANTI-CD47 ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFAugust 2020March 2021Allow701YesNo
16916220PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION THEREOF FOR USE IN THE IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST CANCERSJune 2020May 2021Allow1010NoNo
16804548PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION THEREOF FOR USE IN THE IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST CANCERSFebruary 2020January 2021Allow1110YesNo
16797778PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION OF PEPTIDES FOR USE IN IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST LEUKEMIAS AND OTHER CANCERSFebruary 2020June 2021Allow1520YesNo
16794035PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION THEREOF FOR USE IN THE IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST CANCERSFebruary 2020February 2021Allow1220YesNo
16793721PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION OF PEPTIDES FOR USE IN IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST LEUKEMIAS AND OTHER CANCERSFebruary 2020January 2021Allow1120YesNo
16320719PSEUDO-VIRAL PARTICLES AND USES OF SAMEJanuary 2019December 2025Abandon6051YesYes
15961699NUCLEIC ACID ENCODING DUAL FC ANTIGEN BINDING PROTEINSApril 2018May 2020Allow2510YesNo
15949884PEPTIDES AND COMBINATION OF PEPTIDES FOR USE IN IMMUNOTHERAPY AGAINST LEUKEMIAS AND OTHER CANCERSApril 2018December 2020Allow3221YesNo
14977325MONOCLONAL ANTI-GT 468 ANTIBODIES FOR TREATMENT OF CANCERDecember 2015October 2019Allow4640YesNo
14958980ANTI-CD38 HUMAN ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFDecember 2015June 2017Allow1831YesNo
14800162STABILIZED PEPTIDE FRAGMENTS FROM NUCLEOREDOXIN X1 AND USES THEREOFJuly 2015October 2017Allow2741YesNo
14606683METHOD OF TREATING DISORDERS REQUIRING DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL OF CELLSJanuary 2015April 2024Abandon60121NoYes
14505595Multivalent Antibody Complexes Targeting IGF-1R Show Potent Toxicity Against Solid TumorsOctober 2014October 2017Allow3691NoNo
14449975METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SITES FOR IGG CONJUGATIONAugust 2014January 2017Allow2921YesNo
14199760ANTI-C-MET Tandem Fc Bispecific AntibodiesMarch 2014August 2016Allow2911YesNo
13811883COVALENTLY-ASSOCIATED DIABODY COMPLEXES THAT POSSESS CHARGED COIL DOMAINS AND THAT ARE CAPABLE OF ENHANCED BINDING TO SERUM ALBUMINJuly 2013September 2017Allow5631YesNo
13891652ANTIBODY FOR DETECTING DNA DAMAGE IN CELLS UTILIZING CELL MEMBRANE SURFACE ANTIGEN LY6DMay 2013October 2015Allow2921YesNo
13886766HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ANTI-CADHERIN ANTIBODY FOR INDUCTION OF ANTIBODY-DEPENDENT CELLULAR CYTOTOXICITY IN VIVOMay 2013January 2015Allow2110YesNo
13797374NOTCH1 BINDING AGENTS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFMarch 2013May 2015Allow2620YesNo
13636277MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES FOR TREATMENT OF CANCERDecember 2012August 2015Allow3531YesNo
134664331B20 PCSK9 ANTAGONISTSMay 2012October 2014Allow2921YesNo
13456354PODXL Protein in Colorectal CancerApril 2012December 2014Allow3150YesYes
13318422HIGHLY EFFECTIVE ANTI-CADHERIN ANTIBODY FOR INDUCTION OF ANTIBODY-DEPENDENT CELLULAR CYTOTOXICITY IN VIVOFebruary 2012January 2013Allow1520YesNo
13265490IMMUNOGENIC EPITOPES OF NGEP ANTIGENNovember 2011January 2014Allow2721YesNo
13111685NEOPLASM SPECIFIC ANTIBODIES AND USES THEREOFMay 2011June 2013Allow2521YesNo
13005966Notch1 Binding Agents and Methods of Use ThereofJanuary 2011May 2014Allow4031YesNo
12913300NOVEL ANTIBODIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF HIVOctober 2010March 2015Allow5341YesNo
12921954PEPTIDES AND APTAMERS THEREOF AS SPECIFIC MODULATORS OF MUTANT P53 FUNCTIONSeptember 2010May 2014Allow4421YesNo
12763676AG-205 FOR THE TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCERApril 2010February 2017Allow6061YesNo
12710442HUMANIZED ANTIBODIES THAT BIND TO CD19 AND THEIR USESFebruary 2010October 2013Allow4431YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ALLEN, MICHAEL D.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
1.1%
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
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
1.0%
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

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

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

Examiner ALLEN, MICHAEL D - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ALLEN, MICHAEL D works in Art Unit 1671 and has examined 33 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ALLEN, MICHAEL D's allowance rate of 90.9% places them in the 75% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ALLEN, MICHAEL D receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ALLEN, MICHAEL D is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +46.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ALLEN, MICHAEL D. This interview benefit is in the 91% 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, 14.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 9% 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 56.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 82% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% 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, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 29% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.

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 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.

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.