USPTO Examiner SPALLA DAVID C - Art Unit 2821

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17133290TRANSISTORS HAVING VERTICAL NANOSTRUCTURESDecember 2020May 2023Allow2900NoNo
17115679SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOFDecember 2020December 2022Allow2400NoNo
17112357SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICEDecember 2020March 2023Allow2810NoNo
17073038STRUCTURE OF HIGH-VOLTAGE TRANSISTOR AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAMEOctober 2020March 2023Allow2901NoNo
16807305PASSIVATION LAYERS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICESMarch 2020January 2023Allow3501NoNo
16700431FIN SHAPING AND INTEGRATED CIRCUIT STRUCTURES RESULTING THEREFROMDecember 2019October 2023Allow4610NoNo
16382604IMAGING UNIT AND IMAGING APPARATUSApril 2019September 2023Allow5330YesNo

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 SPALLA, DAVID C - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SPALLA, DAVID C works in Art Unit 2821 and has examined 7 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 29 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SPALLA, DAVID C's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 97% 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 SPALLA, DAVID C receive 0.71 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SPALLA, DAVID C is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SPALLA, DAVID C. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 24% 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 32% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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:

  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.

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.