USPTO Examiner GOODWIN MARK ALAN - Art Unit 2964

Examiner Information

Name: GOODWIN, MARK ALAN
Art Unit: 2964
Total Cases: 1
Last Active: August 2025

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
30020728SCREED PLATEAugust 2025October 2025Allow200NoNo
30015249LAWN MOWERJuly 2025November 2025Allow410NoNo
29992872HARROW DISC PIECEMarch 2025December 2025Allow900NoNo
29991941EXCAVATORMarch 2025November 2025Allow800NoNo
29991612CAB INTERIOR FOR SKID STEER LOADERMarch 2025November 2025Allow900NoNo
29989516PLOW ASSEMBLYFebruary 2025December 2025Allow1000NoNo
29988839ROBOTIC LAWNMOWERFebruary 2025October 2025Allow900NoNo
29984031Lawn MowerJanuary 2025November 2025Allow1000NoNo
29982851Utility VehicleJanuary 2025November 2025Allow1000NoNo
29982828FENDER FOR A UTILITY VEHICLEJanuary 2025November 2025Allow1100NoNo
29982731ELECTRIC LAWNMOWER CHARGING PORTJanuary 2025November 2025Allow1000NoNo
29982730LAWNMOWER INTERFACEJanuary 2025November 2025Allow1000NoNo
29982729LAWNMOWER HOUSINGJanuary 2025November 2025Allow1000NoNo
29981388SNOW SHOVEL ATTACHMENTDecember 2024December 2025Allow1100NoNo
29972484Lawn CutterNovember 2024January 2026Allow1400NoNo
29967258ROBOTIC MOWEROctober 2024November 2025Allow1310NoNo
29965663BLOWERSeptember 2024October 2025Allow1300NoNo
29965581BLOWER INTAKESeptember 2024October 2025Allow1300NoNo
35525499Chemical spraying vehicleJune 2024March 2026Allow2100NoNo
35525527Chemical spraying vehicleJune 2024March 2026Allow900NoNo
29934928Plate CompactorMarch 2024October 2025Allow1800NoNo
29934935NOZZLE FOR A LASER CUTTING SYSTEMMarch 2024September 2025Allow1800NoNo
29934961NOZZLE FOR A LASER CUTTING SYSTEMMarch 2024September 2025Allow1800NoNo
29934509BLOWERMarch 2024October 2025Allow1900NoNo
29929309Lawn Mower with Charging DeviceFebruary 2024December 2025Allow2110NoNo
29844368PORTION OF A CABIN OF A TRACTORJune 2022December 2025Allow4210NoNo
29864123BACK-UP RINGMay 2022October 2025Allow4200NoNo
29835467CONTROL HANDLEApril 2022October 2025Allow4200NoNo
29824676HANDHELD CULTIVATORJanuary 2022October 2025Allow4401NoNo
29790768ROUND SIFTERDecember 2021December 2025Allow4801NoNo

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 GOODWIN, MARK ALAN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GOODWIN, MARK ALAN works in Art Unit 2964 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 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GOODWIN, MARK ALAN'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 GOODWIN, MARK ALAN receive 0.00 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 GOODWIN, MARK ALAN 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 32% 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 200.0% 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:

  • 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.