USPTO Examiner GUSMAN BRYAN COAUHTEMOC - Art Unit 2931

Examiner Information

Name: GUSMAN, BRYAN COAUHTEMOC
Art Unit: 2931
Total Cases: 1
Last Active: January 2025

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
29987535Electric Lifting Computer DeskJanuary 2025January 2026Allow1200NoNo
29978148DeskDecember 2024January 2026Allow1300NoNo
35523942Outdoor kitchen islandNovember 2024March 2026Allow1301NoNo
35523933Outdoor kitchen stationNovember 2024March 2026Allow1601NoNo
29975140Folding Dining TableNovember 2024December 2025Allow1300NoNo
29967742TABLE TOPOctober 2024November 2025Allow1300NoNo
29967623TABLE TOPOctober 2024November 2025Allow1300NoNo
35522752Height-adjustable deskOctober 2024November 2025Allow1201NoNo
29966483TABLEOctober 2024November 2025Allow1300NoNo
29954020DESKJuly 2024December 2025Allow1700NoNo
29940346ORTHOPEDIC PILLOWMay 2024November 2025Allow1810NoNo
29931342Desk OrganizerMarch 2024November 2025Allow2000NoNo
29931247RECTANGULAR DESKMarch 2024October 2025Allow1910NoNo
29927658BarFebruary 2024November 2025Allow2110YesNo
29915462Lifting TableOctober 2023October 2025Allow2310NoNo
29900855TABLEAugust 2023October 2025Allow2600NoNo
29879039DESKJune 2023September 2025Allow2720NoNo
29888883STILETTO TABLEApril 2023November 2025Allow3110NoNo
29866577SELF-CHECKOUT SYSTEMSeptember 2022December 2025Allow3910NoNo
29866383TELESCOPING WORK SURFACESeptember 2022November 2025Allow3820NoNo
29841606TABLEJune 2022October 2025Allow4100YesNo
29821317Height Adjustable Gaming DeskDecember 2021August 2024Allow3210NoNo

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 GUSMAN, BRYAN COAUHTEMOC - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GUSMAN, BRYAN COAUHTEMOC works in Art Unit 2931 and has examined 1 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 32 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GUSMAN, BRYAN COAUHTEMOC'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 GUSMAN, BRYAN COAUHTEMOC receive 1.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 9% 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 GUSMAN, BRYAN COAUHTEMOC is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 52% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 31% 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 400.0% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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:

    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.