USPTO Examiner VASSELL MEREDITH ABBOTT - Art Unit 1687

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18793780GeneCull: Enabling High-Quality Gene Sequence Modeling via Evolution-Guided Data Pruning CriteriaAugust 2024September 2025Abandon1411YesNo
18388798PERSONAL WELLNESS RECOMMENDATION ENGINENovember 2023December 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18372402METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ANNOTATING GENOMIC DATASeptember 2023February 2025Abandon1720YesNo
18465093METHODS OF CLASSIFYING AND TREATING PATIENTSSeptember 2023February 2025Abandon1820YesNo
18237358MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM FOR GENOTYPING PCR ASSAYSAugust 2023November 2025Abandon2720NoNo
18230385NUCLEIC ACID-BASED DATA STORAGEAugust 2023January 2026Abandon2920NoNo
18230383NUCLEIC ACID-BASED DATA STORAGEAugust 2023December 2025Abandon2820NoNo
18230382NUCLEIC ACID-BASED DATA STORAGEAugust 2023October 2025Abandon2620YesNo
17631269METHOD FOR ANALYSING LOSS-OF-HETEROZYGOSITY (LOH) FOLLOWING DETERMINISTIC RESTRICTION-SITE WHOLE GENOME AMPLIFICATION (DRS-WGA).January 2022March 2026Allow4910YesNo
17343305SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MOLECULAR DYNAMICS ANALYSISJune 2021May 2025Abandon4801NoNo
17328765NANO COMPUTING DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING NANO COMPUTING DEVICEMay 2021February 2026Allow5621YesNo
17211003TAU PROTEIN ACCUMULATION PREDICTION APPARATUS USING MACHINE LEARNING AND TAU PROTEIN ACCUMULATION PREDICTION METHOD USING THE SAMEMarch 2021May 2025Abandon5040NoNo
17272517METHOD FOR ASSESSING GENOME ALIGNMENT BASISMarch 2021January 2025Abandon4710NoNo
17271652SELF-LEARNING INPUT FILTER FOR MEDICAL DEVICESFebruary 2021November 2025Allow5730YesNo
17271286Biological Information Analysis Device, Biological Information Analysis Method, and Biological Information Analysis SystemFebruary 2021November 2025Abandon5620NoNo
17266689DETERMINING PROTEIN DISTANCE MAPS BY COMBINING DISTANCE MAPS CROPSFebruary 2021March 2025Allow4911YesNo
17266115FREE ENERGY PERTURBATION COMPUTATION SCHEDULING METHOD USED IN HETEROGENEOUS CLUSTER ENVIRONMENTFebruary 2021October 2024Abandon4510NoNo
17265708MACHINE LEARNING FOR DETERMINING PROTEIN STRUCTURESFebruary 2021March 2025Abandon4930YesYes
17140253Quantum Computing SystemJanuary 2021June 2025Abandon5320NoNo
17257545METHOD FOR MEASURING CONCENTRATION OF BIOMETRIC MEASUREMENT OBJECT BY USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEEP LEARNINGDecember 2020July 2025Abandon5420NoNo
17255722METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR IMPROVED MULTIPLEX GENOTYPING AND SEQUENCINGDecember 2020December 2025Allow6021YesNo
17118421ENHANCED PROTEIN STRUCTURE PREDICTION USING PROTEIN HOMOLOG DISCOVERY AND CONSTRAINED DISTOGRAMSDecember 2020May 2025Abandon5311NoNo
17110953SOFT TISSUE MATERIAL CUMULATIVE DAMAGE MODEL FOR REDUCING REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES IN PERFORMING A PROCESSDecember 2020November 2025Allow5950YesNo
17053054METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING CHROMOSOME ANEUPLOIDYNovember 2020March 2026Abandon6040YesNo
17024656METHOD FOR BUILDING PREDICTIVE MODEL OF MICROORGANISM-DERIVED DISSOLVED ORGANIC NITROGEN IN WASTEWATERSeptember 2020February 2025Abandon5320NoNo
16945642SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR GENERATING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS AND USING THE MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR EARLY PREDICTION AND PREVENTION OF PREECLAMPSIAJuly 2020July 2025Abandon6030NoNo
16942222KINEMATIC MODELING OF BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYSJuly 2020April 2025Abandon5620YesNo
16940380NORMALIZING CHROMOSOMES FOR THE DETERMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF COMMON AND RARE CHROMOSOMAL ANEUPLOIDIESJuly 2020March 2025Allow5620YesNo
16920514METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PERSONALIZED, MOLECULAR BASED HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND DIGITAL CONSULTATION AND TREATMENTJuly 2020December 2024Abandon5321YesNo
16847064NUCLEIC ACID-BASED DATA STORAGEApril 2020March 2026Abandon6030YesNo
16755233METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF METABOLISM-ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS, INCLUDING DIAGNOSTICS AND THERAPIES, BASED ON BIOINFORMATICS APPROACHApril 2020October 2024Abandon5420NoNo
16638081METHOD FOR DETECTING GENE REARRANGEMENT BY USING NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCINGFebruary 2020March 2025Abandon6030NoNo
16626200METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE RISK TO DEVELOP TYPE 1 DIABETESDecember 2019January 2026Allow6040NoNo
16614588METHOD FOR MEASURING ALPHA VALUE OF MUSCARINIC M1 RECEPTOR POSITIVE ALLOSTERIC MODULATORSNovember 2019January 2025Allow6041YesNo
16669103NONINVASIVE PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS OF FETAL TRISOMY BY ALLELIC RATIO ANALYSIS USING TARGETED MASSIVELY PARALLEL SEQUENCINGOctober 2019March 2025Abandon6030YesNo
16552653ANALYSIS METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, GENE ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUMAugust 2019January 2025Abandon6040YesNo
16504184SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREDICTING EFFECT OF GENOMIC VARIATIONS ON PRE-MRNA SPLICINGJuly 2019October 2024Abandon6040YesNo
16459948DETERMINING CELL, TISSUE, OR LESION REPRESENTATIONS IN CELL-FREE DNAJuly 2019May 2025Allow6060YesNo
16446143METHODS, APPARATUSES, AND SYSTEMS FOR ANALYZING MICROORGANISM STRAINS IN COMPLEX HETEROGENEOUS COMMUNITIES, DETERMINING FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS THEREOF, AND DIAGNOSTICS AND BIOSTATE MANAGEMENT AND BIOSTATE TEMPORAL FORECASTING BASED THEREONJune 2019November 2024Abandon6011NoNo
15601282INSULIN DELIVERY SYSTEM AND METHODS WITH RISK-BASED SET POINTSMay 2017January 2025Allow6050NoNo
13869857Methods and Systems for Identification of a Protein Binding SiteApril 2013July 2025Abandon60101NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
6
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
6
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
1.4%
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 VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT works in Art Unit 1687 and has examined 32 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 31.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 57 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT's allowance rate of 31.2% places them in the 4% 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 VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT receive 2.91 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% 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 VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT is 57 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.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +37.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VASSELL, MEREDITH ABBOTT. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 13.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 8% 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 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 84% 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 4% 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.