USPTO Examiner JOHNSON AMY COHEN - Art Unit 2844

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
16968053SUBMERGED MECHANICAL TIMEPIECEAugust 2020November 2023Abandon3910NoNo
16491636ANTENNA, MULTIBAND ANTENNA, AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICESeptember 2019June 2021Abandon2210NoNo
16484139PLANAR ANTENNAAugust 2019May 2021Abandon2110YesNo
16410836ELECTRONIC APPARATUSMay 2019April 2021Abandon2310NoNo
16296756FOLDABLE PANEL ANTENNAMarch 2019January 2021Abandon2300NoNo
16285753ANTENNA COUPLING OF IMPLANTABLE DEVICES OR DEVICES ATTACHED TO A PERSON AND AN EXTERNAL DEVICE BY ORIENTATION DEPENDENT SWITCHING OF ANTENNASFebruary 2019January 2021Abandon2310NoNo
15384405INTERLACED 3D VIDEODecember 2016August 2017Allow810NoNo
11379191METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING POWER TO LIGHTING DEVICESApril 2006January 2008Allow2010NoNo
10435687METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING POWER TO LIGHTING DEVICESMay 2003February 2006Allow3310NoNo

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 JOHNSON, AMY COHEN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner JOHNSON, AMY COHEN works in Art Unit 2844 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 33.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 23 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner JOHNSON, AMY COHEN's allowance rate of 33.3% places them in the 6% 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 JOHNSON, AMY COHEN receive 0.89 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 5% 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 JOHNSON, AMY COHEN is 23 months. This places the examiner in the 85% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -37.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by JOHNSON, AMY COHEN. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 26% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 66.7% of allowed cases (in the 99% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

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.

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.