USPTO Examiner ANYAN BARBARA BURGESS - Art Unit 2457

Examiner ANYAN, BARBARA BURGESS - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ANYAN, BARBARA BURGESS works in Art Unit 2457 and has examined 793 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.6%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ANYAN, BARBARA BURGESS's allowance rate of 77.6% places them in the 37% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ANYAN, BARBARA BURGESS receive 3.01 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 ANYAN, BARBARA BURGESS is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 17% 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 -26.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ANYAN, BARBARA BURGESS. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 20.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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 33.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 42% 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, 49.2% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 40% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 84.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 75% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 35.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 60.8% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 77% 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 9.1% of allowed cases (in the 95% 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 17% 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

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