USPTO Examiner PRATT DEANNA L - Art Unit 2911

Examiner PRATT, DEANNA L - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner PRATT, DEANNA L works in Art Unit 2911 and has examined 2,774 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 98.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 14 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner PRATT, DEANNA L's allowance rate of 98.0% places them in the 94% 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 PRATT, DEANNA L receive 0.28 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 1% 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 PRATT, DEANNA L is 14 months. This places the examiner in the 99% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PRATT, DEANNA L. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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, 57.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% 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 84.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 97% 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, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 73% 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 72.2% of appeals filed. This is in the 56% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 46.2% 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, 66.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 82% 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 16.2% of allowed cases (in the 98% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 16.0% of allowed cases (in the 91% 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