USPTO Examiner BOWMAN MARY ELLEN - Art Unit 2875

Examiner BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN works in Art Unit 2875 and has examined 1,200 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 91.3%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 16 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN's allowance rate of 91.3% places them in the 75% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN receive 0.97 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 11% 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 BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN is 16 months. This places the examiner in the 98% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BOWMAN, MARY ELLEN. This interview benefit is in the 36% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 35.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 74% 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 68.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 75.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 22.2% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.8% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 63% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.5% of allowed cases (in the 60% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.4% of allowed cases (in the 47% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

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