USPTO Examiner BURGESS MARC R - Art Unit 3615

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18984421INTELLIGENT CAT LITTER BOXDecember 2024May 2025Allow510NoNo
18015206OFFSHORE STRUCTURE WITH CASTED JOINTS AND USE OF ITJanuary 2023December 2025Abandon3511NoNo
18080171OUTBOARD MOTOR, CONTROL APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR OUTBOARD MOTORDecember 2022March 2026Abandon3910NoNo
17927009FLOATING BODY AND FLOATING PLATFORM INCLUDING THE SAMENovember 2022January 2026Abandon3810NoNo
17927018COMPACT EGG-SHAPED PROPELLERNovember 2022January 2026Abandon3810NoNo
17294942PROW AND/OR STERN ARRANGEMENT FOR REDUCING THE DRAG OF A WATERCRAFT DURING SAILINGNovember 2022January 2026Abandon5610NoNo
17985452ADAPTABLE THROTTLE UNITS FOR MARINE DRIVES AND METHODS FOR INSTALLING THEMNovember 2022September 2025Allow3420YesNo
17984440OUTBOARD MARINE DRIVES HAVING SUPPORTING FRAME AND COWLINGNovember 2022January 2026Allow3921NoNo
17985100SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR UNDERWATER VEHICLESNovember 2022March 2026Abandon4011NoNo
13838850SPROUTED SEED GRAIN GROWING AND HARVESTING APPARATUS AND METHODMarch 2013August 2013Allow600NoNo
13066742Apparatus and Method for Automatically Jigging a Fishing LineApril 2011May 2013Allow2400NoNo
13012136FAKE BAIT HAVING ADJUSTMENT DEVICEJanuary 2011January 2013Allow2410NoNo
12914447STRIKE-SETTING ASSEMBLY FOR USE WITH AN UNMANNED FISHING RODOctober 2010June 2012Allow2000NoNo
12673692DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE POWER SUPPLY OF AT LEAST ONE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ACTUATORFebruary 2010November 2013Allow4520NoNo
12370840TRAPPING SYSTEM UTILIZING VIDEO ATTRACTANTSFebruary 2009August 2012Allow4200NoNo
12252175ACTUATION ASSEMBLYOctober 2008August 2012Allow4610NoNo

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 BURGESS, MARC R - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BURGESS, MARC R works in Art Unit 3615 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BURGESS, MARC R's allowance rate of 87.5% places them in the 67% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by BURGESS, MARC R receive 0.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 4% 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 BURGESS, MARC R is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 19% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

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.

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:

  • 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.