USPTO Examiner RODRIGUEZ DOUGLAS X - Art Unit 2853

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17122120Model-Insensitive Control of Nonlinear ResonatorsDecember 2020February 2023Allow2620NoNo
15733977MULTIPURPOSE FRONT-END BOARD TO CHARACTERIZE SOLID-STATE SENSORS FOR PARTICLE DETECTIONDecember 2020January 2024Allow3710NoNo
16536720MAGNETIC AND OPTICAL CATHETER ALIGNMENTAugust 2019September 2023Allow4920YesNo
15854231MULTI-WINDING HIGH SENSITIVITY CURRENT TRANSFORMERDecember 2017May 2018Allow500NoNo
15729690PROCESS FOR ACCURATELY PROFILING FLUID DISTRIBUTION IN MULTI-LAYER ABSORBENT ARTICLES IN TWO AND THREE DIMENSIONSOctober 2017June 2019Allow2010NoNo
15630968DC DISTRIBUTION CONNECTION DEVICEJune 2017April 2019Allow2200YesNo
15615976RESONANCE WIRELESS POWER ENABLED PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENTJune 2017April 2019Allow2310NoNo
15533397RADIO FREQUENCY RECEIVE COIL FOR USE IN MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING SYSTEMS WITH DISCONNECTION WARNINGJune 2017July 2019Allow2510NoNo
15613563METHOD AND COMPUTER FOR AUTOMATIC CHARACTERIZATION OF LIVER TISSUE FROM MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGESJune 2017May 2019Allow2410NoNo
15350499METHOD FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PROPER PROBE PLACEMENT ON PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDNovember 2016March 2019Allow2812NoNo
15346128METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING A PANTOGRAPH OF A RAILWAY VEHICLE AND RAILWAY VEHICLENovember 2016May 2018Allow1810NoNo
15271098MAGNETIC ELECTRONIC DEVICESeptember 2016May 2019Allow3120NoNo
15120662SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HEALTH MONITORING OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMSAugust 2016February 2019Allow3030YesNo
14943509HALL SENSOR AND COMPENSATION METHOD FOR OFFSET CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION IN HALL SENSORNovember 2015December 2017Allow2520NoNo
14943569CURRENT DETECTOR THAT PREVENTS FLUCTUATONS IN DETECTION SENSITIVITYNovember 2015December 2018Allow3721NoNo
14787968NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE TOOL CALIBRATIONOctober 2015September 2019Allow4730YesNo
14652674SENSOR ARRANGEMENT HAVING AN ANGLE SENSOR AND A ROLLING BEARING ARRANGEMENTJune 2015July 2017Allow2510NoNo
14422907METHOD FOR DETECTING DISCONNECTION OF GATE LINE AND DETECTION APPARATUSFebruary 2015October 2016Allow2010NoNo
14625811ICE THICKNESS MEASUREMENT SENSORFebruary 2015July 2018Allow4050YesNo
14626520DETECTING MOISTURE WITH AN ANTENNAFebruary 2015November 2017Allow3330NoNo
14367226METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR OBTAINING AN ELECTRICAL IMPEDIVITY AND/OR RESISTIVITY IMAGE OF A SUBTERRANEAN FORMATIONJune 2014July 2016Allow2520NoNo
14307487Detection of and Response to Second Leakage Detection CircuitJune 2014March 2017Allow3330NoNo
14307293MODULAR RESISTIVITY SENSOR FOR DOWNHOLE MEASUREMENT WHILE DRILLINGJune 2014January 2017Allow3140YesNo
14166562MULTI-WINDING HIGH SENSITIVITY CURRENT TRANSFORMERJanuary 2014August 2017Allow4330YesNo
14154505NON-PLANAR FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR TEST STRUCTURE AND LATERAL DIELECTRIC BREAKDOWN TESTING METHODJanuary 2014June 2016Allow2910YesNo
14111642DEVICE FOR THE CONTACTLESS DETERMINATION OF AN ELECTRICAL POTENTIAL OF AN OBJECT, CURRENT PROBE, AND METHODDecember 2013January 2017Allow3920YesNo
14109242Basalt Fiber Composite For Antenna In Well-LoggingDecember 2013July 2016Allow3120NoNo
14079889CURRENT SENSORS USING MAGNETOSTRICTIVE MATERIALNovember 2013May 2016Allow3020NoNo

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 RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X works in Art Unit 2853 and has examined 28 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 RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X'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 RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X receive 1.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 40% 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 RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X 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 RODRIGUEZ, DOUGLAS X. 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, 42.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 94% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 33% 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.