USPTO Examiner VISONE THOMAS J - Art Unit 1672

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18741683Compositions And Methods Of BDNF ActivationJune 2024January 2026Allow1920NoNo
18361787METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR FREEZING AND THAWING MAMMALIAN CELLSJuly 2023January 2026Allow3051YesNo
18161046MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING IMMUNE RESPONSES AND SKIN AND/OR MUCOSAL BARRIER FUNCTIONSJanuary 2023August 2025Allow3111YesNo
18002224APTAMERS AGAINST SARS-COV-2December 2022March 2026Abandon3901NoNo
17791856SELF-ASSEMBLING, SELF-ADJUVANTING SYSTEM FOR DELIVERY OF VACCINESJuly 2022January 2026Abandon4301NoNo
17834573Compositions and Methods for Inducing an Immune ResponseJune 2022January 2026Abandon4401YesNo
17772651IMPROVED METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ALLULOSEApril 2022January 2026Allow4521NoNo
17770521NOVEL CORONAVIRUS VACCINE BASED ON INFLUENZA VIRUS VECTOR AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOFApril 2022December 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17724722SIZE-BASED DETECTION AND QUANTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL BIO-NANOPARTICLESApril 2022December 2025Abandon4301NoNo
17769684SARS-COV-2 RECOMBINANT RBD PROTEIN, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFORApril 2022January 2026Abandon4520NoNo
17767280COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MEASURING AND INHIBITING CALPAIN-5 ACTIVITYApril 2022August 2025Allow4021NoNo
17766705Antibodies against infectious pathogens and method for production thereofApril 2022January 2026Allow4611NoNo
17685756ASSAY FOR PROGNOSIS OF COVID-19 DISEASEMarch 2022November 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17675418METHOD FOR ASSISTING DETERMINATION OF EXACERBATION RISK OF COVID-19February 2022November 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17618193ADENO ASSOCIATED VIRAL VECTOR DELIVERY OF ANTIBODIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF DISEASE MEDIATED BY DYSREGULATED PLASMA KALLIKREINDecember 2021October 2025Abandon4601NoNo
17522648METHODS OF IDENTIFYING HIV PATIENTS SENSITIVE TO THERAPY WITH gp120 CD4 BINDING SITE-DIRECTED ANTIBODIESNovember 2021October 2025Allow4721YesNo
17381930Method to Produce Virus in Cultured Cells Supplemented With Alpha-KetoglutarateJuly 2021November 2025Abandon5230NoNo
17230821Methods for the Treatment of Solid Tumor Cancers Using Illudins and BiomarkersApril 2021May 2025Abandon4921NoNo
16959634Topical Skin Care CompositionsJuly 2020January 2026Allow6061NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner VISONE, THOMAS J - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VISONE, THOMAS J works in Art Unit 1672 and has examined 5 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 40.0%, 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 VISONE, THOMAS J's allowance rate of 40.0% places them in the 7% 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 VISONE, THOMAS J receive 2.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 76% 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 VISONE, THOMAS J 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 +75.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VISONE, THOMAS J. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 12.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 7% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 0.0% 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.