USPTO Examiner RODRIGUEZ SAUL - Art Unit 3652

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
16967133LOCKING CAM FOR A LOAD HOOK, AND ATTACHMENT DEVICE COMPRISING SUCH A CAMAugust 2020July 2022Abandon2310NoNo
16895211LAYER COOKIE TONGSJune 2020October 2022Abandon2820NoNo
16870194Stowage Module And Cleaning Cloth AssemblyMay 2020October 2022Abandon2920NoNo
16825480End Effector and Picking SystemMarch 2020June 2022Abandon2720NoNo
16812315BALL RETRIEVING DEVICEMarch 2020May 2022Abandon2610NoNo
16780917ELECTROMAGNETIC GRIPPING DEVICEFebruary 2020June 2022Abandon2810NoNo
14550261CONVEYORNovember 2014September 2016Abandon2110NoNo
14463460WHEELCHAIRAugust 2014August 2016Abandon2420NoNo
14332959DISPENSING BULK TRAILER FOR CONVEYING AND UNLOADING ARTICLESJuly 2014October 2016Abandon2810NoNo
14216662ADJUSTABLE AND STOWABLE TRAIN CARGO LIFT SYSTEM AND METHODMarch 2014January 2017Abandon3420NoNo
14214100END FITTING ASSEMBLY FOR CHAIN HOISTMarch 2014November 2016Abandon3210NoNo
14115156FORKLIFT, AUTOMATIC WAREHOUSE USING SAME, AND CARGO HANDLING METHOD USING FORKLIFTNovember 2013August 2016Abandon3420NoNo
13573540Apparatus and method for unloading granular material from vehicles having one or more dump gatesSeptember 2012August 2016Abandon4730NoNo
13229671Attachment for handling bales of haySeptember 2011August 2013Abandon2310NoNo
13129567AUTOMATIC LOAD-PARKING SYSTEMJuly 2011October 2014Abandon4110NoNo
13123480TRAILER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BY ROAD OF CONTAINERSJune 2011October 2014Abandon4210NoNo
13028085Automatic Apparatus for Feeding and Measuring Radioactive MedicineFebruary 2011May 2014Abandon3910NoNo
13005368Transport Device For Media Roll Used With Grand Format PrinterJanuary 2011July 2013Abandon3010NoNo
12896978PORTABLE BINOctober 2010May 2014Abandon4401NoNo
12672061LOADING APPARATUSSeptember 2010May 2012Abandon2820NoNo
12765255SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUSApril 2010July 2012Abandon2720NoYes
12596828PIVOTING IMPLEMENTS AND ADJUSTMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR EARTH MOVING OR MATERIALS HANDLING MACHINESApril 2010September 2013Abandon4710YesNo
12718652System and Method for Transferring Bulk MaterialsMarch 2010October 2012Abandon3210NoNo
12716334Vehicle lifting and maneuvering deviceMarch 2010September 2011Abandon1820YesNo
12692661Method and device for forklift bladeJanuary 2010August 2012Abandon3110NoNo
12690163Cargo Transport System and Method for Loading and Transporting GoodsJanuary 2010September 2012Abandon3210NoNo
12640471Linkage For An Earth-moving MachineDecember 2009August 2013Abandon6020NoNo
12633298WORK TRANSFER APPARATUSDecember 2009August 2013Abandon4410NoNo
12591592Semiconductor manufacturing apparatus and methodNovember 2009May 2014Abandon5421NoNo
12616530PICK-AND-PLACE APPARATUSNovember 2009May 2013Abandon4210NoNo
12575890CAR SLIDER ASSEMBLYOctober 2009May 2014Abandon5630NoNo
12565915HIGH ACCURACY TRANSFER SYSTEM FOR INTACT FILLINGSeptember 2009June 2013Abandon4511NoNo
12585451TRAY FLIP UNLOADERSeptember 2009October 2013Allow4921NoNo
12542190AUTOMATIC PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND A METHOD THEREOFAugust 2009October 2012Abandon3820NoNo
12494586Container for storing and transporting a permanent magnet, method and device for replacing a permanent magnetJune 2009May 2014Abandon5941NoNo
12516072WHEEL LOADERMay 2009August 2011Allow2710NoNo
12418921TRANSPORT TRAILERApril 2009March 2011Allow2310NoNo
12327900TIRE BUILDING CORE TRANSPORT ASSEMBLY AND METHODDecember 2008September 2012Abandon4520NoNo
12275841VACUUM BASED PART SEPARATIONNovember 2008November 2012Abandon4720YesNo
12230466VACUUM PROCESSING APPARATUSAugust 2008May 2011Allow3330NoNo
12191185TRUCK BED APPARATUSAugust 2008April 2011Allow3210NoNo
12174491SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING APPARATUS HAVING ALL-ROUND TYPE WAFER HANDLING CHAMBERJuly 2008May 2014Abandon6030YesNo
12129151CART FOR A TRAILER HITCHMay 2008July 2012Abandon4920NoNo
12055791APPARATUS FOR PRODUCT SEPARATION AND PROCESSINGMarch 2008September 2010Abandon3010NoNo
12072838ARTICULATED ROBOTFebruary 2008December 2010Allow3330NoNo
12000463PANEL DOLLY APPARATUSDecember 2007April 2011Allow4020NoYes
11917033FascinesDecember 2007June 2010Abandon3010NoNo
11903345SMALL VEHICLE LOADING AND TRANSPORT DECK FOR PICKUP TRUCKSSeptember 2007April 2011Allow4330NoNo
11579565GLASS HANDLING SYSTEMSAugust 2007March 2011Allow5311NoNo
10492756Vessel Closures and Methods ThereforJuly 2007December 2012Abandon6060NoNo
11810660PARCEL DELIVERY TRUCK WITH LIFT OR HOIST UNITJune 2007January 2013Allow6020NoYes
11684526PARTICLE SPREADER SYSTEMMarch 2007March 2011Allow4930YesNo
11712693Method and apparatus for moving a palletMarch 2007June 2010Abandon3910NoNo
11712229Trailer support apparatus and methodFebruary 2007July 2010Abandon4010NoNo
11623471Manual Wheelchair LoaderJanuary 2007November 2013Abandon6040NoYes
11638676LIFT TRUCKDecember 2006March 2011Allow5130YesNo
11561224DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SEPARATING BULK MATERIALSNovember 2006September 2010Abandon4620NoNo
10941600SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR WAFER TRANSLATIONSeptember 2004March 2011Allow6020NoYes
10788165Process for sorting recyclable materialFebruary 2004June 2010Abandon6020YesYes
10680532Large bale handlerOctober 2003April 2010Abandon6060YesYes
10036802CONTAINER AND LOADER FOR SUBSTRATEDecember 2001June 2012Allow60110YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RODRIGUEZ, SAUL.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
6
Examiner Affirmed
4
(66.7%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(33.3%)
Reversal Percentile
55.1%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 33.3% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
8
Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(37.5%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
5
(62.5%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
62.2%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.

In this dataset, 37.5% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner RODRIGUEZ, SAUL - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RODRIGUEZ, SAUL works in Art Unit 3652 and has examined 61 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 23.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner RODRIGUEZ, SAUL's allowance rate of 23.0% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by RODRIGUEZ, SAUL receive 2.02 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 48% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RODRIGUEZ, SAUL is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 25% 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 +12.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RODRIGUEZ, SAUL. This interview benefit is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 13.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 11% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 14% 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.

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 40.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 8% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 44.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 36% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 8.2% of allowed cases (in the 92% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 40% 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:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • 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.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.