Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17128843 | METHODS AND KITS FOR NUCLEIC ACID SAMPLE PREPARATION FOR SEQUENCING | December 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17107832 | HIGHLY SENSITIVE IN VITRO ASSAYS TO DEFINE SUBSTRATE PREFERENCES AND SITES OF NUCLEIC-ACID BINDING, MODIFYING, AND CLEAVING AGENTS | November 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17057390 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MAKING GUIDE NUCLEIC ACIDS | November 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17093050 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MOLECULAR COMPOSITION GENERATION | November 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17046099 | Methods for High-Content Drug Screening | October 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16755942 | Modification of D and T Arms of tRNA Enhancing D-Amino Acid and Beta-Amino Acid Uptake | June 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16852257 | HIGHLY SENSITIVE IN VITRO ASSAYS TO DEFINE SUBSTRATE PREFERENCES AND SITES OF NUCLEIC ACID CLEAVING AGENTS | April 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16612880 | METHOD FOR SEPARATING, CAPTURING, ANALYZING AND RETRIEVING CELLS AND CELL PRODUCTS BY USING MICROSTRUCTURE | November 2019 | May 2023 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16483896 | METHOD FOR DETECTING KNOWN NUCLEOTIDE MODIFICATIONS IN AN RNA | August 2019 | February 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16465134 | METHODS OF PREPARING NUCLEIC ACID LIBRARIES AND COMPOSITIONS AND KITS FOR PRACTICING THE SAME | May 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 59 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16386472 | HIGHLY SENSITIVE IN VITRO ASSAYS TO DEFINE SUBSTRATE PREFERENCES AND SITES OF NUCLEIC-ACID BINDING, MODIFYING, AND CLEAVING AGENTS | April 2019 | October 2023 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16337282 | DIRECTED EVOLUTION OF ENZYMES BY PLASMID TAGGING IN DROPLETS | March 2019 | June 2024 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16181114 | NUCLEIC ACID INDEXING TECHNIQUES | November 2018 | September 2023 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15776346 | MACROMOLECULAR STRUCTURES AND USES THEREOF | May 2018 | March 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14847292 | MARKER CONSISTING OF PLASMA MICRORNA AND A NEW METHOD FOR DIAGNOSIS OF HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA | September 2015 | April 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner PARISI, JESSICA DANIELLE works in Art Unit 1675 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 73.3%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner PARISI, JESSICA DANIELLE's allowance rate of 73.3% places them in the 39% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by PARISI, JESSICA DANIELLE receive 2.47 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PARISI, JESSICA DANIELLE is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +38.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PARISI, JESSICA DANIELLE. This interview benefit is in the 85% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 22.2% 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.
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 88% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.
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.