USPTO Examiner SOTO HENRIX - Art Unit 3654

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17378500CABLE DRUM FOR A CABLE WINCH AND METHOD FOR PRODUCTION THEREOFJuly 2021February 2025Allow6030YesNo
16973267ROTARY TOWER CRANE HAVING A TOWER MAST THAT CONSISTS OF A PLURALITY OF TOWER SECTIONSJune 2021October 2024Abandon4620YesNo
17255855VEHICLE CRANE COMPRISING A MOVABLE ADAPTER BETWEEN THE MAIN BOOM AND THE MAIN BOOM EXTENSIONDecember 2020March 2023Allow2710NoNo
17128670KNUCKLE BOOM CRANE, FOR OFFSHORE APPLICATIONDecember 2020March 2023Allow2710NoNo
17102216FAIRLEAD WITH ILLUMINATION MODULENovember 2020March 2023Allow2710NoNo
17075194Cable Guide DeviceOctober 2020January 2024Allow3940YesNo
17073137BAITCASTER WITH COMPOUND GEAR SETOctober 2020May 2023Allow3120YesNo
17066723SNATCH RING PULLEYOctober 2020January 2024Allow3930NoNo
16608844IMPROVED MODULAR FENCING STORAGE AND HANDLING DEVICEOctober 2019April 2024Abandon5410NoNo

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 SOTO, HENRIX - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SOTO, HENRIX works in Art Unit 3654 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SOTO, HENRIX's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 47% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SOTO, HENRIX receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 47% 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 SOTO, HENRIX is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -5.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SOTO, HENRIX. This interview benefit is in the 6% 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

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 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:

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.

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.