USPTO Examiner BEIL RANDI LYNN - Art Unit 1684

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18672510MULTIPLEXED SEQUENCING IN CELLS AND TISSUESMay 2024January 2026Allow2031NoNo
18439353METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CELL-FREE CLONINGFebruary 2024April 2025Allow1420NoNo
18510295ENRICHMENT OF SHORT NUCLEIC ACID FRAGMENTS IN SEQUENCING LIBRARY PREPARATIONNovember 2023April 2025Allow1700NoNo
18506751METHOD AND KIT FOR THE GENERATION OF DNA LIBRARIES FOR MASSIVELY PARALLEL SEQUENCINGNovember 2023December 2025Allow2501NoNo
18462747ENGINEERED ENVELOPED VECTORS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFSeptember 2023March 2025Allow1921NoNo
18447800SEPARATING POLYNUCLEOTIDE FRAGMENTSAugust 2023October 2025Allow2610NoNo
18446362Next Generation SequencingAugust 2023December 2025Allow2811NoNo
18328320METHODS FOR DEPLETION OF HIGH-COPY SEQUENCES IN MULTIPLEXED WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING LIBRARIESJune 2023March 2025Allow2110NoNo
18299553Methods of Producing Nucleic Acid Libraries and Compositions and Kits for Practicing SameApril 2023October 2025Allow3020NoNo
18154639HIGH DENSITY SEQUENCING AND MULTIPLEXED PRIMINGJanuary 2023January 2026Allow3650NoNo
17989417METHODS FOR NORMALIZING NUCLEIC ACID SAMPLESNovember 2022September 2025Allow3440YesNo
18047533Phage-Displayed Accessible Recombinant Targeted Antibodies and Methods of Making SameOctober 2022August 2024Allow2221NoNo
17819034HIGH-THROUGHPUT, DROPLET-BASED SINGLE CELL RNA SEQUENCINGAugust 2022November 2025Abandon3940YesNo
17881051ACCURATE AND MASSIVELY PARALLEL QUANTIFICATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDAugust 2022December 2024Abandon2921NoNo
17761389APPARATUSES SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENRICHMENT AND SEPARATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS BY SIZEMarch 2022January 2026Abandon4601NoNo
17571347SPATIAL NUCLEIC ACID DETECTION USING OLIGONUCLEOTIDE MICROARRAYSJanuary 2022March 2025Abandon3821NoYes
17511324LIBRARIES FOR NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCINGOctober 2021January 2025Abandon3931YesNo
17469343ADAPTORS AND METHODS FOR HIGH EFFICIENCY CONSTRUCTION OF GENETIC LIBRARIES AND GENETIC ANALYSISSeptember 2021January 2026Abandon5241NoNo
17466881INFLAMMATORY BIOMARKER SPECIFIC TO EXPOSURE TO 2-BUTANONE AND IDENTIFICATION METHOD USING SAMESeptember 2021November 2024Abandon3931NoNo
17373475HIGH-THROUGHPUT METHOD TO RAPIDLY ADD CHEMICAL MOIETIES TO A SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARYJuly 2021November 2025Allow5211NoNo
17368243METHODS OF IDENTIFYING ABUNDANCE AND LOCATION OF AN ANALYTE IN A BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE USING SECOND STRAND SYNTHESISJuly 2021September 2024Allow3831NoNo
17296038SPATIAL MAPPING OF CELLS AND CELL TYPES IN COMPLEX TISSUESMay 2021April 2025Abandon4701NoNo
17192824DIRECTED EVOLUTION METHOD FOR TEMPLATE-INDEPENDENT POLYMERASESMarch 2021December 2024Allow4521NoNo
17172816SPATIAL TARGETING OF ANALYTESFebruary 2021July 2025Allow5311YesNo
17153019DEPLETION OF ABUNDANT UNINFORMATIVE SEQUENCESJanuary 2021January 2026Allow6051YesNo
17257509METHOD TO PERFORM HIGH-THROUGHPUT SINGLE CELL GENOMIC AND PHENOTYPIC ANALYSESDecember 2020October 2024Allow4511NoNo
17250024CHEMICAL PLATFORM ASSISTED PROXIMITY CAPTURE (CAP-C)November 2020March 2025Allow5221YesNo
17088925METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR TREATING CANCERNovember 2020January 2025Abandon5111NoNo
17051870SINGLE TUBE BEAD-BASED DNA CO-BARCODING FOR ACCURATE AND COST-EFFECTIVE SEQUENCING, HAPLOTYPING, AND ASSEMBLYOctober 2020July 2025Allow5721NoNo
17051793HIGH-RESOLUTION SPATIAL MACROMOLECULE ABUNDANCE ASSESSMENTOctober 2020March 2025Allow5321YesNo
17045734METHOD OF IN SITU GENE SEQUENCINGOctober 2020April 2025Allow5421YesNo
17044128Method to Connect Chromatin Accessibility and TranscriptomeSeptember 2020December 2024Allow5121NoNo
17041724Integrative DNA and RNA Library Preparations and Uses ThereofSeptember 2020September 2024Allow4831YesNo
17014909METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE CELL PROTEIN ANALYSISSeptember 2020November 2024Allow5011YesNo
16998685HAIRPIN PRIMER DESIGN FOR SEQUENTIAL PCR PRODUCTION OF TARGETED SEQUENCING LIBRARIESAugust 2020May 2025Abandon5741YesNo
16931389METHODS OF MULTIPLEXING CRISPRJuly 2020July 2025Allow6031NoNo
16756813A HIGHLY ERROR-PRONE ORTHOGONAL DNA REPLICATION SYSTEM FOR TARGETED CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION IN VIVOApril 2020March 2026Allow6041YesYes
16639220ACCURATE AND MASSIVELY PARALLEL QUANTIFICATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDFebruary 2020January 2025Abandon5911NoNo
16724045METHODS, COMPOSITIONS, AND SYSTEMS FOR IMPROVING RECOVERY OF NUCLEIC ACID MOLECULESDecember 2019October 2025Abandon6040NoNo
16620203A HIGH-THROUGHPUT (HTP) GENOMIC ENGINEERING PLATFORM FOR IMPROVING SACCHAROPOLYSPORA SPINOSADecember 2019December 2024Abandon6031NoNo
16492588PAIRING ANTIGEN SPECIFICITY OF A T CELL WITH T CELL RECEPTOR SEQUENCESSeptember 2019September 2024Allow6022YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BEIL, RANDI LYNN.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
1.3%
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 BEIL, RANDI LYNN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BEIL, RANDI LYNN works in Art Unit 1684 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 64.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BEIL, RANDI LYNN's allowance rate of 64.0% places them in the 24% 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 BEIL, RANDI LYNN receive 2.36 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 67% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BEIL, RANDI LYNN is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 3% 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 +31.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BEIL, RANDI LYNN. This interview benefit is in the 80% 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, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 75% 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.

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, 125.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 95% 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.