Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18439353 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR CELL-FREE CLONING | February 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18510295 | ENRICHMENT OF SHORT NUCLEIC ACID FRAGMENTS IN SEQUENCING LIBRARY PREPARATION | November 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18462747 | ENGINEERED ENVELOPED VECTORS AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | September 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 18047533 | Phage-Displayed Accessible Recombinant Targeted Antibodies and Methods of Making Same | October 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17881051 | ACCURATE AND MASSIVELY PARALLEL QUANTIFICATION OF NUCLEIC ACID | August 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17571347 | SPATIAL NUCLEIC ACID DETECTION USING OLIGONUCLEOTIDE MICROARRAYS | January 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 17511324 | LIBRARIES FOR NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING | October 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17466881 | INFLAMMATORY BIOMARKER SPECIFIC TO EXPOSURE TO 2-BUTANONE AND IDENTIFICATION METHOD USING SAME | September 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17368243 | METHODS OF IDENTIFYING ABUNDANCE AND LOCATION OF AN ANALYTE IN A BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE USING SECOND STRAND SYNTHESIS | July 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17296038 | SPATIAL MAPPING OF CELLS AND CELL TYPES IN COMPLEX TISSUES | May 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17192824 | DIRECTED EVOLUTION METHOD FOR TEMPLATE-INDEPENDENT POLYMERASES | March 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17257509 | METHOD TO PERFORM HIGH-THROUGHPUT SINGLE CELL GENOMIC AND PHENOTYPIC ANALYSES | December 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17250024 | CHEMICAL PLATFORM ASSISTED PROXIMITY CAPTURE (CAP-C) | November 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17088925 | METHODS AND MATERIALS FOR TREATING CANCER | November 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17051793 | HIGH-RESOLUTION SPATIAL MACROMOLECULE ABUNDANCE ASSESSMENT | October 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17045734 | METHOD OF IN SITU GENE SEQUENCING | October 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17044128 | Method to Connect Chromatin Accessibility and Transcriptome | September 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17041724 | Integrative DNA and RNA Library Preparations and Uses Thereof | September 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17014909 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SINGLE CELL PROTEIN ANALYSIS | September 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16998685 | HAIRPIN PRIMER DESIGN FOR SEQUENTIAL PCR PRODUCTION OF TARGETED SEQUENCING LIBRARIES | August 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16639220 | ACCURATE AND MASSIVELY PARALLEL QUANTIFICATION OF NUCLEIC ACID | February 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16620203 | A HIGH-THROUGHPUT (HTP) GENOMIC ENGINEERING PLATFORM FOR IMPROVING SACCHAROPOLYSPORA SPINOSA | December 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16492588 | PAIRING ANTIGEN SPECIFICITY OF A T CELL WITH T CELL RECEPTOR SEQUENCES | September 2019 | September 2024 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 2 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BEIL, RANDI LYNN.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner BEIL, RANDI LYNN works in Art Unit 1684 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 59.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner BEIL, RANDI LYNN's allowance rate of 59.1% places them in the 13% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BEIL, RANDI LYNN receive 1.95 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 63% 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 BEIL, RANDI LYNN is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BEIL, RANDI LYNN. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 27.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 39% 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 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 53% 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, 90.9% 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'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.