USPTO Examiner SHEIKH HAROON S - Art Unit 1751

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17128305CATHODE, LITHIUM-AIR BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF PREPARING THE CATHODEDecember 2020January 2023Allow2501NoNo
17252080METHOD OF MANUFACTURING NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERYDecember 2020August 2023Allow3200NoNo
17117192HALIDE SOLID ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL AND BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAMEDecember 2020July 2024Allow4310NoNo
16973547NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERYDecember 2020May 2024Allow4120NoNo
16973675BATTERY PACK AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE SAMEDecember 2020October 2024Allow4620YesNo
17091208NEGATIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL FOR NONAQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERIES, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR NONAQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND NONAQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERYNovember 2020October 2024Allow4720YesYes
17051689CONDUCTIVE MATERIAL DISPERSION LIQUID, ELECTRODE AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY PREPARED BY USING THE SAMEOctober 2020January 2024Allow3810YesNo
17050463FUEL CELL SYSTEMOctober 2020February 2023Allow2810NoNo
17050517ELECTROLYTE, ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERY, AND MODULEOctober 2020January 2024Allow3910NoNo
17041590BIPOLAR PLATE WITH UNDULATING CHANNELSOctober 2020January 2023Allow2830YesNo
17039974BUTTON-TYPE LITHIUM ION BATTERY WITH METAL HOUSINGSeptember 2020November 2023Allow3740NoNo
17036170ACTIVE MATERIAL STRUCTURE, ELECTRODE STRUCTURE INCLUDING THE SAME, SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAMESeptember 2020November 2024Allow4931YesNo
17012063BATTERY MODULE AND SAFETY STRUCTURE THEREOFSeptember 2020March 2024Abandon4340NoNo
16987624ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION FOR LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERYAugust 2020August 2024Abandon4820YesNo
16988044SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL WITH WATER RECYCLEAugust 2020December 2024Abandon5260YesNo
16914792Slurry Formulation for the Formation of Layers for Solid State BatteriesJune 2020December 2023Allow4220NoNo
16891557CERAMIC ANION EXCHANGE MATERIALSJune 2020April 2024Allow4730YesNo
16890311REDOX FLOW BATTERIES EMPLOYING DIAMONDJune 2020March 2024Abandon4640YesNo
16767029PAPER-BASED ALUMINUM-AIR BATTERIES AND BATTERY PACKS FOR PORTABLE APPLICATIONSMay 2020August 2023Abandon3941YesNo
16753756ALUMINA SINTERED BODY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFORApril 2020June 2023Allow3821YesNo
16482542ELECTRODE FOR ALL SOLID-STATE BATTERY INCLUDING SOLID ELECTROLYTEJuly 2019July 2024Allow5970YesNo
16479446BIPOLAR PLATE, CELL FRAME, CELL STACK AND REDOX FLOW BATTERYJuly 2019January 2023Allow4240YesNo
16194539Wound-Type Electrode AssemblyNovember 2018January 2023Allow5040YesNo
15853885COMPOSITE ANODE MATERIAL MADE OF IONIC-CONDUCTING ELECTRICALLY INSULATING MATERIALDecember 2017November 2023Allow6090YesYes
15516437ELECTROCATALYSIS OF LITHIUM POLYSULFIDES: CURRENT COLLECTORS AS ELECTRODES IN LI/S BATTERY CONFIGURATIONApril 2017May 2024Abandon60100YesNo
15173007SUPPORT MEMBER FOR BATTERY PACK TOP HOUSINGJune 2016April 2020Allow4660YesYes
14931931BATTERY HEAT EXCHANGE DUCT SYSTEMNovember 2015March 2018Allow2810NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SHEIKH, HAROON S.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
3
Examiner Affirmed
1
(33.3%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(66.7%)
Reversal Percentile
85.8%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 66.7% 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
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(75.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(25.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
93.4%
Higher 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, 75.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner SHEIKH, HAROON S - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SHEIKH, HAROON S works in Art Unit 1751 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SHEIKH, HAROON S's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 47% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SHEIKH, HAROON S receive 3.26 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 88% 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 SHEIKH, HAROON S is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 16% 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 -19.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHEIKH, HAROON S. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 15.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 13% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

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 3% 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 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 6% 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 6% 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.
  • 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.