USPTO Examiner MOONEY JAMES K - Art Unit 2695

Examiner MOONEY, JAMES K - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MOONEY, JAMES K works in Art Unit 2695 and has examined 48 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MOONEY, JAMES K's allowance rate of 87.5% places them in the 67% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by MOONEY, JAMES K receive 1.98 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 50% 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 MOONEY, JAMES K is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 56% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +1.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MOONEY, JAMES K. This interview benefit is in the 19% 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, 31.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 66% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 31.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 46% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 36.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 24% 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 23% 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 30% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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