USPTO Examiner SALVOZA M FRANCO G - Art Unit 1671

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18790657CAPSID VARIANTS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAMEJuly 2024April 2025Allow810NoNo
18788938CAPSID VARIANTS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAMEJuly 2024April 2025Allow810NoNo
18537448PREFUSION PIV F IMMUNOGENS AND THEIR USEDecember 2023May 2025Allow1711NoNo
18521590MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR TREATING CANCERNovember 2023May 2025Allow1811NoNo
18517808COMPOSITION FOR REGULATING PRODUCTION OF INTERFERING RIBONUCLEIC ACIDNovember 2023September 2024Allow1011YesNo
18471955BIVALENT DENGUE/HEPATITUS B VACCINESSeptember 2023April 2025Allow1821NoNo
18463609IMMUNITY-INDUCING AGENT AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION CONTAINING SAMESeptember 2023October 2024Allow1301NoNo
18455787Conformationally Specific Viral ImmunogensAugust 2023September 2025Abandon2511NoNo
18453078SIMIAN ADENOVIRAL VECTORS WITH TWO EXPRESSION CASSETTESAugust 2023August 2024Allow1201NoNo
18200421EXPRESSION SYSTEMSMay 2023November 2024Abandon1701NoNo
18311056VACCINES AGAINST CORONAVIRUS AND METHODS OF USEMay 2023February 2025Abandon2111NoNo
18310066Nucleoside-modified mRNA-lipid nanoparticle lineage vaccine for hepatitis C virusMay 2023October 2024Allow1711YesNo
18299676VACCINATION IN NEWBORNS AND INFANTSApril 2023April 2025Allow2411NoNo
18113776NON-PSYCHOACTIVE CANNABINOIDS AS ADJUVANTS TO ENHANCE MUCOSAL IMMUNITYFebruary 2023June 2025Abandon2811NoNo
18172741Anti-Inflammatory PolypeptidesFebruary 2023April 2025Allow2610NoNo
18150430AAV CHIMERASJanuary 2023July 2024Allow1911NoNo
18074220INFLUENZA B VIRUS MUTANTS AND USES THEREFORDecember 2022April 2025Allow2911NoNo
18059269METHODS OF PACKAGING MULTIPLE ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS VECTORSNovember 2022June 2025Allow3010NoNo
17931215METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR STIMULATING IMMUNE RESPONSESeptember 2022August 2024Allow2311NoNo
17818610DENGUE VACCINE UNIT DOSE AND ADMINISTRATION THEREOFAugust 2022May 2025Abandon3311NoNo
17816788FORMULATIONS FOR SMALL INTESTINAL DELIVERY OF RSV AND NOROVIRUS ANTIGENSAugust 2022August 2024Allow2411NoNo
17750896TREATMENT OF INSECT BITE HYPERSENSITIVITYMay 2022October 2024Allow2811YesNo
17747713IMMUNOGENIC COMPOSITIONS AGAINST INFLUENZAMay 2022January 2025Allow3211NoNo
17754877Vaccine ProductApril 2022February 2025Abandon3401NoNo
17626288ENGINEERED VACCINIA VIRUSJanuary 2022September 2025Abandon4501NoNo
17544418AAV PRODUCTION USING SUSPENSION ADAPTED CELLSDecember 2021November 2024Abandon3521NoNo
17530103TREATMENT OF PRURITUS IN HORSESNovember 2021July 2024Allow3211YesNo
17496250ANTIBODIES THAT TARGET HIV GP120 AND METHODS OF USEOctober 2021March 2025Allow4111YesNo
17408104METHODS OF PREDICTING ANCESTRAL VIRUS SEQUENCES AND USES THEREOFAugust 2021March 2025Allow4231NoNo
17402973USE OF VISTA AGONISTS AND ANTAGONISTS TO SUPPRESS OR ENHANCE HUMORAL IMMUNITYAugust 2021May 2025Abandon4521NoNo
17374399VACCINE AGAINST INFECTIOUS BRONCHITISJuly 2021October 2024Allow3921NoNo
17415606MODIFIED ORTHOPOXVIRUS VECTORSJune 2021August 2025Abandon5001NoNo
17333052VACCINE COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING RABIES, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOFMay 2021March 2025Allow4621NoNo
17306884METHODS FOR TREATING CORONAVIRUS INFECTION AND RESULTING INFLAMMATION-INDUCED LUNG INJURYMay 2021March 2025Abandon4701NoNo
17227527ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS PURIFICATION METHODSApril 2021October 2024Allow4331NoNo
17216660METHODS FOR TREATING CORONAVIRUS INFECTION AND RESULTING INFLAMMATION-INDUCED LUNG INJURYMarch 2021April 2025Abandon4901NoNo
17212051STIMULATION OF AN IMMUNE RESPONSE BY ENANTIOMERS OF CATIONIC LIPIDSMarch 2021February 2025Abandon4641NoNo
17053733ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS (AAV) DELIVERY OF ANTI-FAM19A5 ANTIBODIESNovember 2020September 2024Allow4631NoNo
17051296LENTIVIRAL-BASED VECTORS AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EUKARYOTIC GENE EDITINGOctober 2020April 2025Allow5321NoNo
17038031LENTIVIRAL VECTOR FORMULATIONSSeptember 2020April 2025Allow5551NoYes
16978177ENGINEERED VEGF VARIANTS FOR RETINAL NEUROPROTECTION, PROMOTION OF AXON GROWTH AND AXON REGENERATIONSeptember 2020May 2025Allow5621YesNo
16648922A GENE THERAPY STRATEGY TO RESTORE ELECTRICAL AND CARDIAC FUNCTION, AND CARDIAC STRUCTURE, IN ARRHYTHMOGENIC RIGHT VENTRICULAR CARDIOMYOPATHYMarch 2020December 2023Allow4521NoNo
16617805A METHOD TO CREATE PERSONALIZED CANCER VACCINESNovember 2019February 2025Abandon6041NoNo
16614441RECOMBINANT ONCOLYTIC VIRUSNovember 2019February 2025Allow6051NoNo
16604818METHODS OF CD40 AND TOLL LIKE RECEPTOR IMMUNE ACTIVATIONOctober 2019August 2024Allow5841NoNo
16480939B-CELL ENGINEERINGJuly 2019April 2025Abandon6041NoNo
16481010PORCINE CORONAVIRUS VACCINESJuly 2019June 2024Allow5841YesNo
16360278PARTICULATE VACCINE FORMULATIONSMarch 2019May 2025Abandon6071YesYes
16096673RELATIVE POTENCY ASSAY FOR VIRAL VECTOR ENCODING ISOMEROHYDROLASESOctober 2018March 2025Allow6031NoYes
15863076PATTERNED DOSING OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSANTS COUPLED TO SYNTHETIC NANOCARRIERSJanuary 2018December 2024Abandon6071NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SALVOZA, M FRANCO G.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(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

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

Examiner SALVOZA, M FRANCO G - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SALVOZA, M FRANCO G works in Art Unit 1671 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SALVOZA, M FRANCO G's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% 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 SALVOZA, M FRANCO G receive 2.88 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% 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 SALVOZA, M FRANCO G is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SALVOZA, M FRANCO G. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 20.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 22% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 33% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 87% 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 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 3% 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.