USPTO Examiner JONAITIS JUSTIN M - Art Unit 2924

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
29991443VEHICLE CROSS BARFebruary 2025January 2026Allow1010NoNo
35522460InhalerAugust 2024March 2026Allow1810NoNo
29935605DRIVING RECORDER CASEApril 2024December 2025Allow2000NoNo
29925406HOSE HANGER FOR A CPAP MACHINEJanuary 2024October 2025Allow2000NoNo
29924255RAFTER FASTENER FOR SOLAR PANELJanuary 2024October 2025Allow2100NoNo
35519927NebulizerNovember 2023March 2026Allow2811NoNo
29913518Combined Disposable Diaper Changing Pad and BagOctober 2023February 2026Allow2900NoNo
29913309DRUG CARTRIDGE HOUSINGSeptember 2023January 2026Allow2700NoNo
35521604Part of endoscope tipJune 2023March 2026Allow3200NoNo
35521587Part of endoscope tipJune 2023March 2026Allow3200NoNo
29894683Grill Vent Adapter for Smoker ConversionJune 2023January 2026Allow3100NoNo
29876232Integrated Mixing CupMay 2023January 2026Allow3200NoNo
35520624Control cabinet for intraoral scannerApril 2023December 2025Allow3200NoNo
15982388Heat ExchangerMay 2018August 2018Allow300NoNo
15535772HEAT EXCHANGERJune 2017November 2018Allow1710NoNo
15514523COMPACT HEAT EXCHANGE SYSTEM AND METHOD OF COOLINGMarch 2017August 2018Allow1700YesNo
15440123CONCEALED HEATING SYSTEMFebruary 2017October 2018Allow1910YesNo
15364246THERMAL RESERVOIR FOR A STEAM ENGINENovember 2016April 2019Allow2910NoNo
15127590THERMAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF ELECTRIC VEHICLESeptember 2016October 2018Allow2510NoNo
12656803DRILLED AND INTEGRATED SECONDARY FUEL NOZZLE AND MANUFACTURING METHODFebruary 2010March 2011Allow1310NoNo
12216079QUICK CONNECTION DEVICE FOR ELECTRIC SPRAY GUNJune 2008August 2010Allow2600NoNo
12028528SEAT LIFTING SYSTEMFebruary 2008September 2011Allow4310NoNo
11921138ELECTROSTATIC ATOMIZING DEVICE AND AIR BLOWER USING THE SAMENovember 2007September 2010Allow3410YesNo
11764103SPRINKLER MOUNTJune 2007February 2011Allow4440NoNo
11269938ACCESSORIES FOR WATER AND BEVERAGE BOTTLESNovember 2005August 2009Allow4501NoNo

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 JONAITIS, JUSTIN M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner JONAITIS, JUSTIN M works in Art Unit 2924 and has examined 12 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 26 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner JONAITIS, JUSTIN M'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 JONAITIS, JUSTIN M receive 0.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 7% 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 JONAITIS, JUSTIN M is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 77% 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 JONAITIS, JUSTIN M. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 22.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 5% 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 25.0% of allowed cases (in the 99% 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 16.7% of allowed cases (in the 92% 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:

  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.