USPTO Examiner ALAM MOHAMMED R - Art Unit 2823

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17122706APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING STRUCTURE OF BOTTOM ELECTRODES AND PROVIDING A TOP-SUPPORT THEREOFDecember 2020January 2023Allow2511NoNo
17115143THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY DEVICE AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOFDecember 2020March 2023Allow2810YesNo
17110027POWER TRANSISTOR WITH SOFT RECOVERY BODY DIODEDecember 2020June 2023Allow3020NoNo
17055694CHEMICAL SENSORNovember 2020August 2023Allow3300NoNo
17055820SYSTEM FOR COOLING A METAL-CERAMIC SUBSTRATE, A METAL-CERAMIC SUBSTRATE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SYSTEMNovember 2020August 2023Allow3300NoNo
17047912ARRAY SUBSTRATE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY PANELOctober 2020March 2023Allow2900YesNo
17062625SEMICONDUCTOR TRANSISTORS ON MULTI-LAYERED SUBSTRATESOctober 2020February 2023Allow2820NoNo
17016877SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAMESeptember 2020April 2023Allow3111NoNo
17015914PROCESSING METHOD FOR SUBSTRATESeptember 2020July 2023Allow3420NoNo
17003181SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOFAugust 2020March 2023Allow3021NoNo
16906714GALLIUM NITRIDE SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR CRYSTALJune 2020June 2022Allow2410YesNo
16808898MICROELECTRONIC SENSOR WITH AN AHARONOV-BOHM ANTENNAMarch 2020February 2023Allow3610NoNo
16688344Semiconductors with Improved Thermal Budget and Process of Making Semiconductors with Improved Thermal BudgetNovember 2019February 2023Allow3950NoNo
16013329NANOWIRE TRANSISTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF SHAPINGJune 2018August 2023Allow6031NoNo
15449638PHOTODETECTORMarch 2017September 2018Allow1811YesNo

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 ALAM, MOHAMMED R - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ALAM, MOHAMMED R works in Art Unit 2823 and has examined 15 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 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ALAM, MOHAMMED R'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 ALAM, MOHAMMED R receive 1.47 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 22% 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 ALAM, MOHAMMED R is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 60% 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 ALAM, MOHAMMED R. 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, 41.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 93% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 28.6% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 25% 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.