USPTO Examiner WEISS PAMELA HL - Art Unit 1732

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
14279027MONOESTER-BASED LUBRICANTS AND METHODS OF MAKING SAMEMay 2014May 2015Allow1210YesNo
13973754METHOD OF USING BIOLOGICALLY-DERIVED MONOESTERS AS DRILLING FLUIDSAugust 2013May 2015Allow2010YesNo
13973619BIOLOGICALLY-DERIVED MONOESTERS AS DRILLING FLUIDSAugust 2013May 2015Allow2110YesNo
13946905High Lubricity Fuel Reformulation to Increase Mileage and Reduce EmissionsJuly 2013August 2014Allow1300NoNo
12000399TRUNK PISTON ENGINE LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITIONSDecember 2007March 2015Allow6070YesNo
12000183LUBRICANT COMPOSITIONDecember 2007January 2011Allow3820NoNo
12000184Method for forming finished lubricantsDecember 2007July 2013Allow6020YesNo

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 WEISS, PAMELA HL - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner WEISS, PAMELA HL works in Art Unit 1732 and has examined 7 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 21 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner WEISS, PAMELA HL's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 93% 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 WEISS, PAMELA HL receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 47% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by WEISS, PAMELA HL is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 89% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WEISS, PAMELA HL. This interview benefit is in the 13% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 73% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 75% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 14.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 5% 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:

  • 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.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.