USPTO Examiner GRIFFITH DUSTIN ANDREW - Art Unit 2913

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
30005276EARBUD CASEMay 2025September 2025Allow400NoNo
29994470BackpackMarch 2025October 2025Allow710NoNo
35522937RucksackOctober 2024February 2026Allow1610NoNo
29965544KEYRINGSeptember 2024November 2025Allow1320NoNo
29960381GOLF BAG DIVIDER TOPAugust 2024October 2025Allow1300NoNo
29960100GOLF BAG DIVIDER TOPAugust 2024October 2025Allow1300NoNo
29957484BACKPACKAugust 2024November 2025Allow1501NoNo
29955595CARD HOLDERAugust 2024October 2025Allow1400NoNo
29917597BACKPACKNovember 2023October 2025Allow2310NoNo
29910358Diaper BagAugust 2023September 2025Allow2510NoNo
29863560BACKPACKDecember 2022October 2025Allow3400NoNo
29839279GAME BAGMay 2022September 2025Allow4010NoNo
29836511BACKPACK HAVING PARTIALLY DETACHED SIDE POCKETSApril 2022October 2025Allow4220YesNo
29827801BACKPACKFebruary 2022October 2025Allow4321NoNo
29821393CONTAINERDecember 2021October 2025Allow4520YesNo
29811742BACKPACK WITH PASS-THROUGH CHANNELOctober 2021October 2025Allow4820NoNo

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 GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW works in Art Unit 2913 and has examined 2 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 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW'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 GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 51% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GRIFFITH, DUSTIN ANDREW. This interview benefit is in the 15% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 29% 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 100.0% of allowed cases (in the 99% 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

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.