USPTO Examiner MCCONNELL MARLA D - Art Unit 1789

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18694206ADHESIVE SYSTEMMarch 2024February 2026Allow2310NoNo
18320271ABSORBENT ARTICLES WITH CORRUGATED ELASTOMERIC LAMINATES AND METHODS FOR MAKING CORRUGATED ELASTOMERIC LAMINATESMay 2023January 2026Allow3210NoNo
17967788INFILL MATERIAL FOR ARTIFICIAL GRASS SURFACES, AN ARTIFICIAL GRASS SURFACE STRUCTURE AND A RECYCLING METHODOctober 2022April 2025Abandon3020NoNo
17915441MATERIALS, INCLUDING NONWOVEN MATERIALS, AND METHODS THEREOFSeptember 2022April 2025Abandon3101NoNo
17758806LAMINATE SHEET, SANITARY MATERIAL, MEDICAL MATERIAL, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING LAMINATE SHEETJuly 2022April 2025Abandon3301NoNo
17735771FLOORING TILE COLLECTIONS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND INSTALLING SAMEMay 2022January 2025Abandon3231YesNo
17715118FIBROUS LAYER WITH HOTMELT COATING COMPOSITIONApril 2022April 2025Abandon3721NoNo
17761048WATER-RETAINING ARTIFICIAL TURFMarch 2022April 2025Abandon3721NoNo
17692186METHOD OF PRODUCING ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY, ELECTRODE, AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING ELECTRODEMarch 2022January 2026Allow4621NoNo
17753503RECYCLABLE TUFTED CARPET PRODUCTMarch 2022February 2025Abandon3640NoNo
17624512MOTOR VEHICLE FLOOR TRIM, LUGGAGE COMPARTMENT TRIM OR LOAD FLOOR TRIM WITH TEXTURED NEEDLE-PUNCHED CARPET SURFACEJanuary 2022April 2025Abandon4021NoNo
17565873ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY CELLDecember 2021August 2025Allow4320YesNo
17553483LEG GARMENTDecember 2021April 2025Abandon4020YesNo
17511601Garment and Clothes that are Unravel-Free and Roll-FreeOctober 2021April 2025Abandon4221NoNo
17598399GARMENTSeptember 2021March 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17470805ARTIFICIAL TURF WITH TEXTURED HYDROPHILIC FIBERSSeptember 2021April 2025Abandon4340NoNo
17459216UV LIGHT SANITIZATION OF CARPETINGAugust 2021March 2025Abandon4241YesNo
17312570POLYOLEFIN COMPOSITION FOR CARPET BACKINGJune 2021April 2025Abandon4640NoNo
17259717SWELLABLE ELASTOMERIC INFILL COMPOSITION FOR ARTIFICIAL TURFJanuary 2021March 2025Abandon5030NoNo
16762696NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, NEGATIVE ELECTRODE INCLUDING THE SAME, AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE NEGATIVE ELECTRODEMay 2020December 2025Allow6070YesNo
16531069Floor Mat Having Reduced Tuft ProfileAugust 2019April 2025Abandon6081YesYes
16304276TUFTED CARPET INCLUDING POLYETHYLENETEREPHTHALATE BULKED CONTINUOUS FILAMENTMay 2019April 2025Abandon6070YesYes
16256412GRASS SURROGATEJanuary 2019January 2026Abandon6071YesYes
16067072WASH-DURABLE, FLUID ABSORBENT SUBSTRATE WITH ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES AND/OR IMPROVED WASHABILITY, AND HYGIENE PRODUCT SUCH AS REUSABLE SANITARY NAPKINJune 2018February 2023Abandon5621NoNo
15886336Bonding of Turbomachinery ComponentsFebruary 2018March 2019Abandon1300NoNo
15854109CABLE, METHOD FOR PRODUCING A CABLE AND EXTRUSION UNITDecember 2017March 2019Abandon1500NoNo
15507224AIR-PERMEABLE LAMINATE INSULATION MATERIALFebruary 2017December 2019Abandon3410NoNo
15113902LIQUID CRYSTAL POLYESTER FIBER AND PRODUCING METHOD THEREOFJuly 2016July 2019Abandon3621NoNo
15026289PVDF TEXTILE ARTICLEMarch 2016July 2019Abandon4020NoNo
14392253DISSIPATION OF STATIC ELECTRICITYDecember 2015January 2019Abandon3711YesNo
14968252FLUORINATED TIN OXIDE BACK CONTACT FOR AZTSSE PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICESDecember 2015November 2016Allow1120YesNo
14650466THERMOELECTRIC CONVERSION ELEMENT AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR THE SAMEJune 2015November 2016Allow1720NoNo
14718761COMPOSITIONS FOR TREATING TEXTILE FIBERS AND FLOOR COVERINGS COMPRISING THE SAMEMay 2015December 2018Abandon4331YesNo
14437176FLAME-RETARDANT COATING MATERIAL AND FLAME-RETARDANT SUBSTRATEApril 2015August 2018Abandon4020NoNo
14434026HYDROGEL COMPOSITESApril 2015November 2018Abandon4321NoNo
14663014DECORATIVE MATTRESS BORDER FABRIC WITH INHERENT FLAME BARRIERMarch 2015February 2020Abandon5931NoNo
14625331PHONONIC COMPOSITE MATERIAL WITH INTERNAL RESONANT PHASESFebruary 2015July 2019Abandon5330YesNo
14414130THERMOPLASTIC RESIN REINFORCED SHEET MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAMEJanuary 2015August 2019Abandon5531NoNo
14356521CELLULOSIC FIBER WITH HYDROPHOBIC PROPERTIES AND HIGH SOFTNESS AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCTION THEREOFMay 2014November 2019Abandon6041YesNo
13930637WHISKER-REINFORCED HYBRID FIBER BY METHOD OF BASE MATERIAL INFUSION INTO WHISKER YARNJune 2013August 2018Abandon6060YesNo
13912001CROSSMEMBER THERMOELECTRIC GENERATOR WITH IMPROVED THERMAL EXPANSION PROTECTIONJune 2013January 2017Allow4311NoNo
13908105POLYOLEFIN DISPERSION TECHNOLOGY USED FOR POROUS SUBSTRATESJune 2013September 2018Abandon60100YesNo
13392987FLAME-RESISTANT CELLULOSIC FIBER, ITS USE AND PRODUCTION PROCESSMarch 2012November 2018Abandon6071YesNo
13182203SOLAR CELLJuly 2011November 2016Allow6090NoNo
12454378SOLAR HOME ELECTRIFICATION WITH GRID CONNECTIONMay 2009August 2012Allow3911NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MCCONNELL, MARLA D.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
3
Examiner Affirmed
3
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
3.3%
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
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
5
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
2.2%
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 MCCONNELL, MARLA D - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MCCONNELL, MARLA D works in Art Unit 1789 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 20.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MCCONNELL, MARLA D's allowance rate of 20.6% places them in the 2% 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 MCCONNELL, MARLA D receive 3.44 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 93% 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 MCCONNELL, MARLA D 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 -1.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MCCONNELL, MARLA D. This interview benefit is in the 10% 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, 3.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 13% 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 4% 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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% 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, 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 8% 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 8% 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.