USPTO Examiner KAYES SEAN PHILLIP - Art Unit 2838

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18433493OVERLAY MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND METHOD, AND SYSTEM AND PROGRAM THEREFORFebruary 2024July 2025Allow1810YesNo
18500384ANTENNA STRUCTURENovember 2023July 2025Allow2110NoNo
18344236TIMEPIECE REGULATING MEMBER WITH A BALANCE SPRING PROVIDED WITH MEANS FOR GRAVITY COMPENSATIONJune 2023July 2025Allow2500NoNo
18207859ANTENNA DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION DEVICEJune 2023July 2025Allow2610NoNo
18326040MEANDER EMBEDDING SECTOR ANTENNA FOR SERIES SUPERCONDUCTING DETECTORSMay 2023July 2025Abandon2610NoNo
18043390COOLING MODULE FOR AN ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLE, COMPRISING A TANGENTIAL-FLOW TURBOMACHINEFebruary 2023July 2025Allow2810NoNo
18107878ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICEFebruary 2023July 2025Allow3010NoNo
18090529VIBRATION EXCITERDecember 2022July 2025Allow3111YesNo
18001188SENSOR DEVICE TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF UNWANTED SIGNALS MADE IN OPTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIESDecember 2022July 2025Abandon3210NoNo
18050312DIRECT SLOT COOLING SYSTEM FOR MOTORSOctober 2022July 2025Allow3211NoNo
17934329INNOVATIVE LEAD WIRE BUS BARSeptember 2022July 2025Abandon3420NoNo
17893176MOTOR AND AIRCRAFTAugust 2022June 2025Allow3411NoNo
17818704BUSBAR BASE PLATEAugust 2022July 2025Allow3511NoNo
17817667ELECTRIC ENGINE FOR A CHARGING DEVICE AND PRODUCTION METHODAugust 2022June 2025Allow3511NoNo
17583648MULTI-FREQUENCY BAND ANTENNAJanuary 2022July 2025Allow4210NoNo
17486354TACTILE FEEDBACK MECHANISMSeptember 2021June 2025Allow4511NoNo
17073227ROLLING SHUTTER BASED SENSING AND RELATED METHODSOctober 2020July 2025Abandon5721NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
6.5%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.

In this dataset, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP works in Art Unit 2838 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 57 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 12% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP receive 1.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 26% 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 KAYES, SEAN PHILLIP is 57 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

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 31% 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:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.