Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17252259 | ANTIBODY TARGETING CLDN18.2, BISPECIFIC ANTIBODY, ADC, AND CAR, AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF | December 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16979906 | ANTIBODY TARGETING CTLA-4 , PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF | December 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17058870 | ENTPD2 ANTIBODIES, COMBINATION THERAPIES, AND METHODS OF USING THE ANTIBODIES AND COMBINATION THERAPIES | November 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17058430 | METHODS OF MAKING NATURAL KILLER CELLS AND USES THEREOF | November 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17052912 | Fusion Proteins Composed of an Interleukin-2 Mutein and Type I Interferon | November 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17051834 | HIGH AFFINITY ANTIBODIES TO PD-1 AND LAG-3 AND BISPECIFIC BINDING PROTEINS MADE THEREFROM | October 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 41 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17048535 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF ISCHEMIA AND CARDIOMYOPATHY | October 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17046352 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE IMMUNE CHECKPOINT BLOCKADE OF TIM4 | October 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17045336 | STABLE ANTIBODY FORMULATION | October 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15733623 | ANTIBODY-INTERFERON FUSION PROTEINS FOR ENHANCING ADOPTIVE T CELL THERAPIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER | September 2020 | May 2025 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16971627 | HPV Proteins, Antibodies, and Uses in Managing Abnormal Epithelial Cell Growth | August 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 56 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16956784 | Oral Gene Carrier And Use Thereof | August 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16968398 | MODIFIED IMMUNOMODULATORY PEPTIDE | August 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16936874 | MODULATING T CELL FUNCTION AND RESPONSE | July 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16963732 | MICROGLIA MODULATORS FOR USE IN TREATMENT OF DEPRESSION | July 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16597654 | METHODS OF CLASSIFYING DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA | October 2019 | April 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16489280 | KITS AND ASSAYS TO DETECT CIRCULATING MULTIPLE MYELOMA CELLS FROM BLOOD | August 2019 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | 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 GAO, ASHLEY HARTMAN works in Art Unit 1678 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 47.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner GAO, ASHLEY HARTMAN's allowance rate of 47.1% places them in the 11% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by GAO, ASHLEY HARTMAN receive 2.06 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 50% 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 GAO, ASHLEY HARTMAN is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +46.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GAO, ASHLEY HARTMAN. This interview benefit is in the 90% 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, 12.5% 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.
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 50% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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'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 50.0% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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.