USPTO Examiner HENZE DAVID V - Art Unit 2859

Examiner HENZE, DAVID V - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HENZE, DAVID V works in Art Unit 2859 and has examined 695 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 71.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HENZE, DAVID V's allowance rate of 71.8% places them in the 35% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by HENZE, DAVID V receive 1.90 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 46% 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 HENZE, DAVID V is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 52% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +18.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HENZE, DAVID V. This interview benefit is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 30.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 23.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 31% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 36% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 28.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

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 7.2% of allowed cases (in the 85% 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

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