USPTO Examiner GODDARD TAMMY - Art Unit 2611

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18821364METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR GENERATING CONTENT USING A DIFFUSION MODELAugust 2024March 2026Allow1800NoNo
18766481INTERACTIVE GUI ELEMENTS FOR INDICATING OBJECTS TO SUPPLEMENT REQUESTS FOR GENERATIVE OUTPUTJuly 2024January 2026Allow1800NoNo
18564209IMAGE PROCESSING METHODNovember 2023July 2025Allow1900NoNo
18515378GENERATIVE IMAGE FILLING USING A REFERENCE IMAGENovember 2023October 2025Allow2310YesNo
18505009RELIGHTABLE NEURAL RADIANCE FIELD MODELNovember 2023October 2025Allow2310NoNo
18491599Systems and Methods for 3D Facial ModelingOctober 2023October 2025Allow2410NoNo
18137293SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADJUSTING A USER POSITION IN VIRTUAL REALITYApril 2023December 2025Allow3220YesNo
10677258DISPLAY AND DISPLAY PANEL DRIVING METHODOctober 2003March 2006Allow2900NoNo
10402957TOUCH PANEL INTEGRATED TYPE DISPLAY APPARATUSApril 2003July 2006Allow3920NoNo
10387129ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND OPERATION DEVICE FOR OPERATING THE APPARATUSMarch 2003July 2006Allow4030NoNo
10321363POWER MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICEDecember 2002February 2006Allow3810NoNo
10288914APPARATUS FOR IMAGE PROJECTIONNovember 2002January 2006Allow3820NoNo

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 GODDARD, TAMMY - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GODDARD, TAMMY works in Art Unit 2611 and has examined 5 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 38 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GODDARD, TAMMY's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 95% 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 GODDARD, TAMMY receive 1.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 30% 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 GODDARD, TAMMY is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 98% 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.

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 3% 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 40.0% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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 23% 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.