USPTO Examiner NEULEN EMILIE ALINE - Art Unit 1686

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18824839System and Method for Planning and Simulating a Surgical Operation to Create a Patient-Specific Spinal ImplantSeptember 2024March 2025Allow611YesNo
18692344ANALYTIC PLATFORM USING NPM1-ASSOCIATED GENES INTERACTION NETWORK FOR IDENTIFYING GENETIC TRAITSMarch 2024April 2025Abandon1310NoNo
18163149MARKERS FOR THE EARLY DETECTION OF COLON CELL PROLIFERATIVE DISORDERSFebruary 2023March 2025Allow2540YesNo
17805147METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR IMPROVING BASE CALLING ACCURACYJune 2022May 2025Abandon3530NoNo
17529694NORMALIZING TUMOR MUTATION BURDENNovember 2021March 2025Allow4040NoNo
17387830METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ADJUSTING TUMOR MUTATIONAL BURDEN BY TUMOR FRACTION AND COVERAGEJuly 2021December 2024Allow4140NoNo
17304066METHOD, APPARATUS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING A MULTI-OMICS FRAMEWORK FOR ESTIMATING TEMPORAL DISEASE TRAJECTORIESJune 2021March 2025Allow4520YesNo
17281707METHOD AND SYSTEM OF TARGETING EPITOPES FOR NEOANTIGEN-BASED IMMUNOTHERAPYMarch 2021May 2025Allow5020YesNo
17207169MACHINE LEARNING DRIVEN GENE DISCOVERY AND GENE EDITING IN PLANTSMarch 2021November 2024Allow4430YesNo
17261707Method of Performing Differential Diagnosis of Neurodegenerative Diseases in a SubjectJanuary 2021March 2025Abandon5010NoNo
17128298ELECTRON DENSITY ESTIMATION METHOD, ELECTRON DENSITY ESTIMATION APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUMDecember 2020June 2025Abandon5421YesNo
17126491Merging Alignment and Sorting to Optimize Computer Operations for Gene Sequencing PipelineDecember 2020May 2025Allow5320YesNo
17112956Rapid Detection of Gene FusionsDecember 2020April 2025Allow5230YesNo
15734674SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PREDICTING PROPERTIES OF A POLYMERDecember 2020December 2024Abandon4910NoNo
17068311SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING POSITIVE ALLOSTERIC MODULATORS OF ENZYMES TO ENHANCE ACTIVITYOctober 2020February 2025Allow5220YesNo
17040620METHODS FOR SCREENING A SUBJECT FOR THE RISK OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODSeptember 2020January 2025Abandon5220NoNo
16982290COSMOPLEX: SELF-CONSISTENT SIMULATION OF SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEMSSeptember 2020May 2025Allow5630NoNo
16990464SCORING VARIANTS IN AN EXOME TO PREDICT AN EFFECT OF THE VARIANTS ON GENE FUNCTIONAugust 2020May 2025Abandon5740NoNo
16945052METHODS FOR CONTROL OF A SEQUENCING DEVICEJuly 2020March 2025Abandon5540NoNo
16963803EXERCISE LOAD ESTIMATION METHOD, EXERCISE LOAD ESTIMATION DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUMJuly 2020April 2025Abandon5730NoNo
16908581DEVICES AND METHODS FOR GENOME SEQUENCINGJune 2020December 2024Allow5340YesNo
16652555DETERMINING FUNCTIONAL STATUS OF IMMUNE CELLS TYPES AND IMMUNE RESPONSEMarch 2020June 2025Allow6050NoNo
16749737Pharmacogenomic Decision Support for Modulators of the NMDA, Glycine, and AMPA ReceptorsJanuary 2020February 2024Allow4930YesNo
16653564Re-writable DNA-Based Digital Storage with Random AccessOctober 2019January 2025Allow6020YesNo
16532077SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STORING AND READING NUCLEIC ACID-BASED DATA WITH ERROR PROTECTIONAugust 2019September 2024Allow6031YesNo
16478818NEOANTIGENS AND USES THEREOF FOR TREATING CANCERJuly 2019November 2024Allow6031NoNo
16345367SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ULTRA-FAST IDENTIFICATION AND ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES OF MICROORGANISMS USING A KMER-DEPTH BASED APPROACH AND PRIVACY-PRESERVING PROTOCOLSApril 2019August 2024Allow6041YesNo
16307817SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERPOLATION IN SYSTEMS WITH NON-LINEAR QUANTIZATIONDecember 2018October 2024Abandon6041NoNo
14895746BIOINFORMATIC PROCESSES FOR DETERMINATION OF PEPTIDE BINDINGDecember 2015March 2025Allow60131NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner NEULEN, EMILIE ALINE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner NEULEN, EMILIE ALINE works in Art Unit 1686 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner NEULEN, EMILIE ALINE's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 20% 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 NEULEN, EMILIE ALINE receive 3.33 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NEULEN, EMILIE ALINE is 53 months. This places the examiner in the 0% 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 +49.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NEULEN, EMILIE ALINE. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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, 24.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 26% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 11.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% 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 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.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • 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.