USPTO Examiner LEE ANDREW P - Art Unit 1691

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18951543PLEUROMUTILIN DERIVATIVE CONTAINING A THIAZOLO[5,4-C]PYRIDINE SIDE CHAIN, AND A PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOFNovember 2024March 2025Allow401NoNo
18429785System and method for non-surgical treatment of prolapsed hemorrhoidsFebruary 2024March 2025Allow1313YesNo
18406732METHODS OF TREATING CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE S1P1 RECEPTORJanuary 2024March 2025Allow1410NoNo
18382307TREATMENT OF HAIR LOSS DISORDERS WITH DEUTERATED JAK INHIBITORSOctober 2023January 2025Allow1521YesNo
18472660Apixaban DosingSeptember 2023January 2025Allow1613YesNo
18324359METHODS FOR TREATING VIRAL DISORDERSMay 2023June 2025Abandon2501NoNo
18315285INHIBITION OF OLIG2 ACTIVITYMay 2023June 2025Abandon2501NoNo
18133176METHODS OF TREATING SUICIDALITYApril 2023June 2025Allow2640NoNo
18125800METHOD OF PREPARING LOXAPINE FILM ORAL DOSAGE FORMMarch 2023June 2025Abandon2730NoNo
17529791FULVESTRANT FORMULATIONSNovember 2021March 2025Allow4040YesNo
17529609CANCER TREATMENT MODALITIESNovember 2021March 2025Abandon4001NoNo
17325937METHODS OF TREATING CANCERSMay 2021April 2025Allow4732NoNo
17257458Oral Pharmaceutical Formulations of Bitter Compounds for Pulmonary HypertensionDecember 2020November 2024Allow4621NoNo
17059297NUPR1 INHIBITION FOR TREATING CANCERNovember 2020September 2024Abandon4511NoNo
16343681DUAL INHIBITORS OF VISTA AND PD-1 PATHWAYSApril 2019April 2025Abandon6071NoYes
16342730COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITING KINASESApril 2019June 2025Allow6041YesYes
15561390P38 MAP KINASE INHIBITORS FOR TREATING FRIEDREICH�S ATAXIASeptember 2017March 2025Allow6071YesYes
14858029SUBSTITUTED N-(1H-INDAZOL-4-YL)IMIDAZO[1,2-a]PYRIDINE-3-CARBOXAMIDE COMPOUNDS AS TYPE III RECEPTOR TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITORSSeptember 2015June 2017Allow2411NoNo
14233228Histone Deacetylase 6 Selective Inhibitors for the Treatment of Bone DiseaseApril 2014July 2016Allow3021NoNo
14351360BIOCIDAL COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF USEApril 2014August 2016Allow2821NoNo
14234916NOVEL ESTROGEN RECEPTOR LIGANDSApril 2014October 2016Allow3321NoNo
14189543COMPOSITION FOR ELIMINATION OF TROUBLESOME VARMINTSFebruary 2014November 2016Allow3330NoNo
14131849C-3 SUBSTITUTED BICYCLOOCTANE BASED HIV PROTEASE INHIBITORSJanuary 2014December 2015Allow2311NoNo
14005462DERIVATIVES OF CELEBOXIB, USE THEREOF AND PREPARATION THEREOFDecember 2013March 2016Allow3021YesNo
14009969SMALL MOLECULES FOR TREATING BREAST CANCERNovember 2013February 2016Allow2821NoNo
14053736HETEROARYL LINKED QUINOLINYL MODULATORS OF RORgammatOctober 2013October 2015Allow2411NoNo
13884900Cyanoenamines and their use as fungicidesJuly 2013June 2016Allow3731NoNo
13994048SUBSTITUTED N-(1H-INDAZOL-4-YL)IMIDAZO[1,2-a]PYRIDINE-3-CARBOXAMIDE COMPOUNDS AS TYPE III RECEPTOR TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITORSJune 2013June 2015Allow2421YesNo
13883038Antimalarial Drug Comprising Alaremycin or Derivative Thereof as Active IngredientMay 2013December 2015Allow3111NoNo
13829062BORONIC ACID DERIVATIVES AND THERAPEUTIC USES THEREOFMarch 2013July 2015Allow2821YesNo
13558491Method of Lowering Serum Uric Acid Levels With (S)-TofisopamJuly 2012March 2016Allow4421YesNo
13393436PHTHALANILATE COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF USEMay 2012May 2014Allow2702NoNo
13467764Inhibitors of PFKFB3 for Cancer TherapyMay 2012June 2016Allow4941YesNo
13386199FUSED AMINODIHYDROPYRIMIDONE DERIVATIVESApril 2012May 2015Allow3931YesNo
13389504PYRIMIDONE COMPOUNDSApril 2012September 2014Allow3121NoNo
13440113(1,2,3-Triazolyl)sulfonyl DerivativesApril 2012March 2014Allow2411YesNo
13381583L-SERINE TO BE USED AS A DRUG FOR PREVENTING AND/OR TREATING AN INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE OF THE SKINMarch 2012May 2018Allow6091YesYes
13368468AROMATIC AND AROMATIC/HETEROAROMATIC MOLECULAR STRUCTURES WITH CONTROLLABLE ELECTRON CONDUCTING PROPERTIESFebruary 2012September 2014Allow3121YesNo
13360066HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDJanuary 2012February 2015Allow3631NoNo
13176851COMPOSITIONS DERIVED FROM METATHESIZED NATURAL OILS AND AMINES AND METHODS OF MAKINGJuly 2011December 2015Allow5332NoNo
13111993ORALLY DISINTEGRATING TABLETS OF ZOLMITRIPTAN AND PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAMEMay 2011September 2014Allow4031NoNo
11885946Antipruritic Agent for Pruritus Caused by Multiple SclerosisMay 2008February 2015Allow6061YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEE, ANDREW P.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
91.8%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(20.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(80.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
21.4%
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, 20.0% 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

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner LEE, ANDREW P - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LEE, ANDREW P works in Art Unit 1691 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 84.6%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LEE, ANDREW P's allowance rate of 84.6% places them in the 55% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LEE, ANDREW P receive 2.56 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 LEE, ANDREW P is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 34% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEE, ANDREW P. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 21.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 18% 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 60.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 83% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 75.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 59% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 59% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

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:

  • 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.
  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.

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.