USPTO Examiner GOOD JOHNSON MOTILEWA - Art Unit 2619

Examiner GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA works in Art Unit 2619 and has examined 77 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.2%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA's allowance rate of 92.2% places them in the 78% 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 GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% 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 GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 39% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -4.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA. This interview benefit is in the 6% 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, 27.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 26.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 36% 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, 22.2% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 28% 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 56.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 29% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 30.8% 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, 76.9% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 82% 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 2.6% of allowed cases (in the 78% 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 24% 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