USPTO Examiner TARCZA ROSEMARY K - Art Unit 2972

Examiner Information

Name: TARCZA, ROSEMARY K
Art Unit: 2972
Total Cases: 1
Last Active: June 2025

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
30008947RECHARGEABLE BATTERY ASSEMBLYJune 2025November 2025Allow500NoNo
29998228CHARGERApril 2025October 2025Allow600NoNo
29989328CHARGER DOORFebruary 2025October 2025Allow800NoNo
29988429INDUCTIVE CHARGING DEVICEFebruary 2025January 2026Allow1200YesNo
29977959GAME CONTROLLER CHARGER BASEDecember 2024December 2025Allow1200NoNo
29977932Charging DockDecember 2024December 2025Allow1200NoNo
29977079CHARGER FOR GAME CONSOLEDecember 2024December 2025Allow1200NoNo
29975885Wireless chargerDecember 2024December 2025Allow1200NoNo
35523784Liquid cooler battery packNovember 2024February 2026Allow1401NoNo
29973157DETACHABLE POCKET FOR SEMICONDUCTOR TEST SOCKET HOUSINGNovember 2024October 2025Allow1100NoNo
29971235Semiconductor moduleNovember 2024October 2025Allow1200NoNo
29971220Semiconductor moduleNovember 2024October 2025Allow1200NoNo
29970987ChargerOctober 2024September 2025Allow1000NoNo
29968129RETRACTABLE CABLE CHARGEROctober 2024October 2025Allow1200NoNo
29966389EARBUD CHARGING CASEOctober 2024October 2025Allow1200NoNo
29966164Multi-function ChargerSeptember 2024October 2025Allow1300NoNo
29947196Wireless Power BankJune 2024October 2025Allow1600NoNo
29945112Power supply for electronic atomizing deviceMay 2024November 2025Allow1700NoNo
29944725PORTABLE POWER STATIONMay 2024October 2025Allow1600NoNo
29942712PORTABLE WIRELESS CHARGERMay 2024October 2025Allow1700NoNo
29932410Cable Management BoxMarch 2024December 2025Allow2100NoNo
35522123Charger for an electric vehicleFebruary 2024December 2025Allow2211NoNo
35522119Charger for an electric vehicleFebruary 2024December 2025Allow1611NoNo
35522131Charger for an electric vehicleFebruary 2024December 2025Allow2211NoNo
29929429BUS BARFebruary 2024October 2025Allow2000NoNo
29853914BATTERYSeptember 2022November 2025Allow3700NoNo
29852339ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION BOXSeptember 2022October 2025Allow3700NoNo
29829858BATTERY PACKMarch 2022August 2025Allow4201NoNo
29802651UNIVERSAL BASE FOR ELECTRIC TOOTHBRUSHAugust 2021August 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 TARCZA, ROSEMARY K - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner TARCZA, ROSEMARY K works in Art Unit 2972 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 TARCZA, ROSEMARY K'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 TARCZA, ROSEMARY K 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 TARCZA, ROSEMARY K 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 33% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 35% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

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.