USPTO Examiner BENEDIK JUSTIN M - Art Unit 3642

Examiner BENEDIK, JUSTIN M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BENEDIK, JUSTIN M works in Art Unit 3642 and has examined 287 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 27 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BENEDIK, JUSTIN M's allowance rate of 95.8% places them in the 85% 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 BENEDIK, JUSTIN M receive 0.87 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 BENEDIK, JUSTIN M is 27 months. This places the examiner in the 74% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +1.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BENEDIK, JUSTIN M. This interview benefit is in the 19% 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, 42.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 93% 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 46.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 18% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 36.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 24% 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 35% 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 38% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy 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