USPTO Examiner CLEVELAND MICHAEL B - Art Unit 1712

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17012952INFILTRATION SYSTEM FOR A CMC MATRIXSeptember 2020March 2024Abandon4230YesNo
16550113Damping method for laser activation systemAugust 2019January 2022Abandon2910NoNo
16434288METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUMJune 2019March 2024Abandon5750YesNo
16240814Maskless surface energy modification with high spatial resolutionJanuary 2019April 2024Abandon6080NoNo
15775984METHOD FOR PRODUCING ALUMINUIM OXIDE AND/OR NITRIDEMay 2018December 2023Abandon6040NoYes
15948365Method for Manufacturing an Industrial ClothingApril 2018January 2020Abandon2120NoNo
15841029PROTECTIVE COVER FOR ELECTROSTATIC CHUCKDecember 2017September 2018Allow900YesNo
15561085METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTRIC WIRESeptember 2017October 2018Abandon1310NoNo
15591928METHOD OF MAKING A SELF-ADHESIVE LAMINATEMay 2017February 2020Abandon3311NoNo
15587186MANUFACTURING METHOD OF POROUS THERMAL INSULATION COATING LAYERMay 2017February 2020Abandon3430NoNo
15420322METHOD OF FORMING NITRIDE FILMJanuary 2017June 2021Abandon5360NoNo
15350373Thermoplastic Polyurethane Hot Melt AdhesiveNovember 2016February 2020Abandon3940YesNo
15120483METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING A TAPEAugust 2016September 2019Abandon3720NoNo
15032047POSITIVE ELECTRODES FOR LITHIUM-SULPHUR BATTERIESApril 2016January 2019Abandon3311NoNo
14916432METHOD FOR PRODUCING A SURFACE STRUCTURE ON A PRESSING TOOL BY APPLYING METAL COATINGSMarch 2016January 2019Abandon3411NoNo
14884071METHOD AND COMPOSITION FOR PAINTING A SURFACE TO PRODUCE A SHARP BOUNDARY BETWEEN PAINTED AND UNPAINTED AREASOctober 2015January 2019Abandon3911NoNo
14677989MESH-LIKE MICRO- AND NANOSTRUCTURE FOR OPTICALLY TRANSPARENT CONDUCTIVE COATINGS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAMEApril 2015August 2017Abandon2931NoNo
14527565THIN FILM PATTERNING METHOD AND THIN FILM PATTERNING APPARATUSOctober 2014November 2018Abandon4961NoYes
14483870Synthesis of Metal Oxide Semiconductor Nanoparticles from a Molecular Cluster CompoundSeptember 2014December 2019Abandon6060NoYes
14378699SULPHATES OF USE AS ELECTRODE MATERIALSAugust 2014October 2018Abandon5731NoNo
14378607ELECTRICAL INSULATING RESIN BASED ON ISOHEXIDEDIOL DIGLYCIDYL ETHERSAugust 2014March 2019Abandon5570YesNo
14336111COATING APPARATUS AND COATING METHODJuly 2014April 2015Abandon900NoNo
14290514PACKAGED HOT-MELT PRESSURE SENSITIVE ADHESIVEMay 2014April 2019Abandon5941YesYes
13766838METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FILLING METAL PASTE, AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING VIA PLUGFebruary 2013October 2015Abandon3201NoNo
13675528METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THIN FILM CAPACITOR AND THIN FILM CAPACITORNovember 2012July 2015Abandon3240YesNo
13675690METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THIN FILM CAPACITOR AND THIN FILM CAPACITORNovember 2012July 2015Abandon3240YesNo
13654918FORMED SHEET MEMBRANE ELEMENT AND FILTRATION SYSTEMOctober 2012May 2018Allow6050YesYes
13599569MAGNETIC RECORDING MEDIUM AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAMEAugust 2012November 2015Abandon3921NoNo
13597608MAGNETIC RECORDING MEDIUM AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAMEAugust 2012May 2015Abandon3211NoNo
13524774METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING METAL OR METAL OXIDE NANOPARTICLES BY LIQUID PHASE DEPOSITION ON THE SURFACE OF A SUBSTRATEJune 2012August 2015Abandon3820NoNo
13515389IN-LINE FILM-FORMING APPARATUS, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING MAGNETIC RECORDING MEDIUM, AND GATE VALVEJune 2012October 2015Abandon4001NoNo
13201775PRODUCTION METHOD OF ELECTRODE AND DISCHARGE SURFACE TREATMENT THEREWITHAugust 2011July 2015Abandon4721NoNo
13057693Method of Manufacturing a DisplayApril 2011April 2014Abandon3810NoNo
12922833Method for Producing an Organic Electronic Component, and Organic Electronic ComponentDecember 2010February 2014Abandon4121NoNo
12941433SOLAR CELL ELECTRODENovember 2010November 2013Abandon3720NoNo
12915512STEPWISE FABRICATION OF MOLECULAR-BASED, CROSS LINKED, LIGHT HARVESTING ARRAYSOctober 2010February 2014Abandon4010NoNo
12870340FLEXIBLE DISPLAY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMEAugust 2010March 2014Abandon4342NoNo
12863338METHOD OF RECYCLING SCRAP MAGNETAugust 2010July 2015Abandon6060YesNo
12750972THIN SILICON OR GERMANIUM SHEETS AND PHOTOVOLATICS FORMED FROM THIN SHEETSMarch 2010April 2014Abandon4801NoNo
12362461MASK AND CONTAINER AND MANUFACTURING APPARATUSJanuary 2009October 2012Allow4480NoNo
12189608Micro-Stamping Method for Photoelectric ProcessAugust 2008November 2013Abandon6050NoNo
12121384COMPOSITION, AND METHOD OF FABRICATING LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENTMay 2008January 2014Abandon6041NoNo
12058453METHOD OF COATING SULFIDE PHOSPHOR AND LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE EMPLOYING COATED SULFIDE PHOSPHORMarch 2008February 2016Abandon6041NoYes
11968116METHODS OF FORMING HIGH DENSITY METAL WIRING FOR FINE LINE AND SPACE PACKAGING APPLICATIONS AND STRUCTURES FORMED THEREBYDecember 2007October 2018Abandon60141NoNo
11962563METHOD OF TREATMENT AND PROCESSING OF TOOLS FOR MACHINING OF WORKPIECES BY CUTTINGDecember 2007September 2011Abandon4510NoNo
11961560METHOD OF SURFACE COATING TO ENHANCE DURABILITY OF AESTHETICS AND SUBSTRATE COMPONENT FATIGUEDecember 2007October 2011Abandon4610NoNo
11933420METHOD OF FABRICATING FULL COLOR ORGANIC LIGHT-EMTTING DEVICE HAVING COLOR MODULATION LAYER USING LITI METHODNovember 2007October 2011Abandon4810NoNo
11872545METHOD OF PROVIDING AN ENCAPSULATION LAYER STACK, COATING DEVICE AND COATING SYSTEMOctober 2007July 2011Abandon4501NoNo
11856779MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR CROSS-WIRING ELECTRODE WIRE OF FIELD EMISSION DISPLAYSeptember 2007July 2011Abandon4610NoNo
11642666Low viscosity precursor compositions and methods for the deposition of conductive electronic featuresDecember 2006December 2013Abandon6050YesNo
11642723Low viscosity precursor compositions and methods for the deposition of conductive electronic featuresDecember 2006December 2013Abandon6030NoNo
11642719Low viscosity precursor compositions and methods for the deposition of conductive electronic featuresDecember 2006December 2013Abandon6030NoNo
11362266High-throughput printing of semiconductor precursor layer from microflake particlesFebruary 2006June 2010Abandon5120NoYes
10531070Optical deviceFebruary 2006February 2014Abandon6030YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
5
Examiner Affirmed
5
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
1.6%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
8
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
8
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
1.1%
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

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

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

Examiner CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B works in Art Unit 1712 and has examined 54 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 5.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B's allowance rate of 5.6% places them in the 1% 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 CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B receive 3.02 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 CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B is 45 months. This places the examiner in the 13% 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 +14.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CLEVELAND, MICHAEL B. This interview benefit is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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 4.5% 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.

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 2% 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 16.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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.
  • 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.