USPTO Examiner KRAIG WILLIAM F - Art Unit 2896

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18607188Cover State Sensing Mechanism for Media Processing DevicesMarch 2024September 2024Allow600NoNo
18186982LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUSMarch 2023October 2024Allow1800NoNo
18165391LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUS AND METHOD OF DRIVING LIQUID DISCHARGE HEADFebruary 2023September 2024Allow2000NoNo
18164999LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUSFebruary 2023September 2024Allow2000NoNo
18160099LIQUID EJECTION APPARATUS CONTROL METHOD AND LIQUID EJECTION APPARATUSJanuary 2023September 2024Allow2000NoNo
18154186PRINTING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD OF PRINTING APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUMJanuary 2023September 2024Allow2000NoNo
18153695INKJET PRINTERJanuary 2023September 2024Allow2000NoNo
18093864PRINTING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD OF PRINTING APPARATUSJanuary 2023August 2024Allow1900NoNo
18149832TANK UNIT AND LIQUID EJECTION APPARATUSJanuary 2023August 2024Allow1900NoNo
18054241LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUS, LIQUID EJECTING METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM STORING INSTRUCTIONS EXECUTABLE BY THE LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUSNovember 2022July 2024Allow2100NoNo
18051369THETA-Z STEP ALIGNMENT OF ODD AND EVEN COLUMNS OF A PRINTHEADOctober 2022June 2024Allow2000NoNo
17966509LIQUID EJECTION APPARATUSOctober 2022August 2024Allow2210YesNo
17949330Three-Dimensional Printing DeviceSeptember 2022August 2024Allow2300YesNo
17911340Inkjet Recording Apparatus and Method for Cleaning Inkjet Recording ApparatusSeptember 2022September 2024Allow2410NoNo
17873174BONDED SUBSTRATE, PIEZOELECTRIC ACTUATOR, LIQUID DISCHARGE HEAD, LIQUID DISCHARGE DEVICE, AND LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUSJuly 2022August 2024Allow2410YesNo
17809609PRINTING DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM THEREFORJune 2022July 2024Allow2511NoNo
17847047LIQUID DISCHARGE HEADJune 2022July 2024Allow2411NoNo
13228293SEMICONDUCTOR APPARATUS HAVING PENETRATION ELECTRODE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMESeptember 2011November 2014Allow3820NoNo
12935356ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE CHEMICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION METHOD FOR PRODUCING A N-SEMICONDUCTIVE METAL SULFIDE THIN LAYERDecember 2010August 2013Allow3510NoNo

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 KRAIG, WILLIAM F - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KRAIG, WILLIAM F works in Art Unit 2896 and has examined 18 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 21 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KRAIG, WILLIAM F's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 99% 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 KRAIG, WILLIAM F receive 0.44 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 3% 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 KRAIG, WILLIAM F is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 86% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KRAIG, WILLIAM F. This interview benefit is in the 11% 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.

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 30% 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:

    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.