Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18953973 | ACTRII PROTEINS AND USE IN TREATING POST-CAPILLARY PULMONARY HYPERTENSION | November 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 8 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18401117 | METHODS OF ALTERING BONE GROWTH BY ADMINISTRATION OF SOST OR WISE ANTAGONIST OR AGONIST | December 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18392926 | MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES TO GROWTH AND DIFFERENTIATION FACTOR 15 (GDF-15) | December 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18502333 | TGF- B receptor II isoform, fusion peptide, methods of treatment and methods in vitro | November 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17916237 | RAPID POINT OF CARE ASSAY FOR THE DETECTION OF THE ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIER STATE OF COVID-19 | September 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17907213 | INHALED INTERFERONS FOR VIRAL RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS | September 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17912969 | Methods and Apparatuses for Early Diagnosis of Lung Infection Acuity | September 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17906190 | ANTI-NGF ANTIBODY AND ANTIGEN-BINDING FRAGMENT THEREOF, PREPARATION METHOD, AND APPLICATION THEREOF | September 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17799890 | FUSION PROTEINS AND USES THEREOF | August 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 42 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17798688 | PEPTIDE IMMUNOGENS TARGETING ISLET AMYLOID POLYPEPTIDE (IAPP) AND FORMULATIONS THEREOF FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF DISORDERS RELATED TO AGGREGATED IAPP | August 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 42 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17782891 | BICYCLIC PEPTIDE LIGANDS SPECIFIC FOR IL-17 | June 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 44 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17774952 | DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC METHODS FOR TREATMENT OF HEMATOLOGIC CANCERS | May 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17727261 | NEO-EPITOPE VACCINES AND METHODS OF TREATING CANCER | April 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17713675 | COMPLEMENT INHIBITION FOR IMPROVED NERVE REGENERATION | April 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17638966 | MODIFIED DOSING OF VEGF INHIBITORS FOR OPHTHALMIC USE | February 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17596277 | CA2 COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR TUNABLE REGULATION | December 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17299664 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING ASTHMA | June 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 2 | No | No |
| 12723499 | Nucleic acid encoding modified human thymic stromal lymphopoietin | March 2010 | February 2011 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12580943 | METHODS OF IMPAIRING OSTEOCLAST DIFFERENTIATION USING ANTIBODIES THAT BIND SIGLEC-15 | October 2009 | January 2012 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11788692 | METHOD AND COMPOSITIONS FOR VACCINATION COMPRISING NUCLEIC ACID AND/OR POLYPEPTIDE SEQUENCE OF CHLAMYDIA | April 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 59 | 3 | 2 | Yes | Yes |
| 11378706 | CLONING, SEQUENCING AND EXPRESSION OF A GENE ENCODING AN EUKARYOTIC AMINO ACID RACEMASE, AND DIAGNOSTIC, THERAPEUTIC, AND VACCINATION APPLICATIONS OF PARASITE AND VIRAL MITOGENS | March 2006 | December 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11221263 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING TREPONEMA PALLIDUM | September 2005 | October 2007 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 10712335 | PREDICTING, DETECTING AND MONITORING TREATMENT OF CARDIOMYOPATHIES AND MYOCARDITIS | November 2003 | March 2012 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10673054 | CELL LYSIS COMPOSITION, METHODS OF USE, APPARATUS AND KIT | September 2003 | August 2007 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 2 | No | Yes |
| 10210296 | LAWSONIA INTRACELLULARIS PROTEINS, AND RELATED METHODS AND MATERIALS | August 2002 | January 2005 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10047676 | MUTACIN I BIOSYNTHESIS GENES AND PROTEINS | January 2002 | October 2003 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 10017168 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING TREPONEMA PALLIDUM | December 2001 | May 2005 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 09958210 | BIODEGRADABLE AND BIOCOMPATIBLE POLYMERIC MICROSPHERES ENCAPSULATING SALMONELLA ENTERITIDISBACTERIA | October 2001 | June 2006 | Allow | 57 | 6 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 09700336 | COMPOUNDS FROM MORAXELLA CATARRHALIS | July 2001 | March 2003 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 09787083 | MORAXELLA CATARRHALIS BASB034 POLYPEPTIDES AND USES THEREOF | May 2001 | December 2002 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 09834904 | BOVINE FOOTROT TREATMENT AND PREVENTION | April 2001 | July 2003 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 09777008 | MULTIVALENT MYCOPLASMA BACTERIN | February 2001 | December 2002 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FORD, VANESSA L.
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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner FORD, VANESSA L works in Art Unit 1674 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.1%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner FORD, VANESSA L's allowance rate of 94.1% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by FORD, VANESSA L receive 2.47 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 72% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by FORD, VANESSA L is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +12.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FORD, VANESSA L. This interview benefit is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 30.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 58% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 62.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 87% 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.
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.
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.
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'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 25.0% of allowed cases (in the 94% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
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.