USPTO Examiner VAN KIRK DUSTIN KENWOOD - Art Unit 1722

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18649960HYDROPHILIC POLYMER, METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY CONTAINING THE HYDROPHILIC POLYMERApril 2024February 2026Allow2200NoNo
18568706ACTIVE MATERIAL AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING THE SAMEDecember 2023September 2025Allow2230YesNo
17921490Battery Housing With Valve Device, Battery and Motor VehicleOctober 2022November 2025Allow3710NoNo
17896610SOLID-STATE ELECTROLYTE FILM AND SOLID-STATE BATTERYAugust 2022November 2025Allow3910NoNo
17888497SILICON CARBON NEGATIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE SHEET, SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK AND POWER CONSUMPTION APPARATUSAugust 2022June 2025Allow3401YesNo
17798749COOLANT PORT ASSEMBLYAugust 2022November 2025Allow3920YesNo
17849992RECYCLING ALL SOLID-STATE BATTERIES (ASSBs) AND ANODE RECOVERYJune 2022January 2026Allow4320NoNo
17785308Housing Cover for a Battery Housing With Particle Protection and Heat Protection, Battery Housing, Traction Battery and Motor VehicleJune 2022January 2026Abandon4320NoNo
17778915CURRENT COLLECTING PLATE AND CYLINDRICAL LITHIUM BATTERYMay 2022October 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17730512COOLING SYSTEM OF POWER STORAGE DEVICEApril 2022May 2025Allow3610YesNo
17730538BATTERY PACK APPARATUSApril 2022December 2025Allow4411YesNo
17707037BATTERY COOLING DEVICEMarch 2022April 2025Allow3610NoNo
17763102SECONDARY BATTERYMarch 2022October 2025Allow4320NoNo
17697490VEHICULAR BATTERY CASEMarch 2022March 2025Allow3610NoNo
17686505LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERYMarch 2022October 2025Abandon4320NoNo
17679014ELECTROCHEMICAL REDUCTION OF HALOGENATED COMPOUNDS COMPRISING A HALOALKANEFebruary 2022February 2025Allow3510NoNo
17043844CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAMEOctober 2020June 2025Allow5621YesNo

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 VAN KIRK, DUSTIN KENWOOD - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VAN KIRK, DUSTIN KENWOOD works in Art Unit 1722 and has examined 1 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 56 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner VAN KIRK, DUSTIN KENWOOD's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by VAN KIRK, DUSTIN KENWOOD receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 51% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by VAN KIRK, DUSTIN KENWOOD is 56 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 0% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 4% 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:

  • 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.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • 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.