USPTO Examiner MULLER DAVID G - Art Unit 2974

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
29995126HUMIDIFICATION TUB SEAL/FRAME MODULEMarch 2025November 2025Allow800NoNo
29992734MAGNETIC CLIP ASSEMBLYMarch 2025January 2026Allow1000NoNo
29986285Magnetic Holder for Tools and HardwareJanuary 2025January 2026Allow1200NoNo
29980507Anion Air PurifierDecember 2024December 2025Allow1200NoNo
29980550PLUG FOR SLIDE RAIL GAPSDecember 2024December 2025Allow1200NoNo
29977011DOSING CUPDecember 2024November 2025Allow1110NoNo
29970930Step Twist DrillOctober 2024November 2025Allow1300NoNo
29969639SCRAPER BLADEOctober 2024October 2025Allow1100NoNo
29969636SCRAPER BLADEOctober 2024October 2025Allow1100NoNo
29964304CLAMPSeptember 2024January 2026Allow1500NoNo
29964083Multifunction ToolSeptember 2024September 2025Allow1200NoNo
29964013AIR PURIFIERSeptember 2024November 2025Allow1400NoNo
29963030HUMIDIFIERSeptember 2024November 2025Allow1400NoNo
29961544Air PurifierSeptember 2024October 2025Allow1410NoNo
29959201PRY BARAugust 2024October 2025Allow1400NoNo
29957127Electric ScrewdriverAugust 2024October 2025Allow1400NoNo
29951945KNIFE SHARPENERJuly 2024December 2025Allow1810NoNo
29944202ESCAPE HAMMERMay 2024October 2025Allow1700NoNo
29941470PRY BARMay 2024October 2025Allow1800NoNo
29941196Manual Knife SharpenerMay 2024September 2025Allow1700NoNo
29939672AIR PURIFIERApril 2024November 2025Allow1910NoNo
29939287Tire leverApril 2024September 2025Allow1700NoNo
29939286Tire plierApril 2024September 2025Allow1700NoNo
29933236Air purifierMarch 2024December 2025Allow2120NoNo
29931854POWERED AIR PURIFYING RESPIRATORMarch 2024October 2025Allow2010NoNo
29928652Pickle ForkFebruary 2024September 2025Allow2000NoNo
35519672Corner air purifier unitDecember 2023October 2025Allow2112NoNo
29900271AIR PURIFIERAugust 2023November 2025Allow2700NoNo
35519378FANAugust 2023January 2026Allow2911NoNo
35520335Humidifying air purifierMarch 2023June 2025Allow2700NoNo
29852785HIGH DENSITY CATHETER TIPSeptember 2022November 2025Allow3801NoNo
29866243CATHETER TIP WITH OPENINGSSeptember 2022November 2025Allow3800NoNo
35518128Air purifierAugust 2022January 2026Allow2921NoNo
29844850SAFETY PEN NEEDLEJuly 2022September 2025Allow3900NoNo
29815356CAPNOGRAPHY FITTINGNovember 2021November 2025Allow4810NoNo
29796841DOSING CUPJune 2021November 2025Allow5310NoNo
29776566Urinary CatheterMarch 2021September 2025Allow5410NoNo
29760798DOSE DELIVERY DEVICEDecember 2020October 2025Allow5811YesNo
29756541MANIFOLD FOR VENTILATION DEVICEOctober 2020November 2025Allow6011NoNo
13540751GUARD FOR WHEELED BASEJuly 2012October 2013Allow1520YesNo

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 MULLER, DAVID G - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MULLER, DAVID G works in Art Unit 2974 and has examined 6 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 54 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MULLER, DAVID G'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 MULLER, DAVID G receive 1.17 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 13% 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 MULLER, DAVID G is 54 months. This places the examiner in the 2% 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 MULLER, DAVID G. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

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 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 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.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • 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.