USPTO Examiner MILES JONATHAN WADE - Art Unit 3656

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18639304SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A CLEANING PROCESS OF TARGETED SURFACESApril 2024January 2026Allow2110NoNo
18464114DUAL SIDE SPRING V-CLIP FOR SURGICAL TREATMENT OF LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGESeptember 2023May 2025Allow2100YesNo
18346044ASPIRATION THROMBECTOMY SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR THROMBUS REMOVAL WITH ASPIRATION CATHETERJune 2023September 2024Allow1500YesNo
18342519OCCLUSION CLIPJune 2023July 2024Allow1220YesNo
17996145OPTICAL MARKER FOR POSITIONING MEDICAL INSTRUMENT, AND MEDICAL INSTRUMENT ASSEMBLYOctober 2022June 2024Allow2120YesNo
17411174PULL-THROUGH CHORDAE TENDINEAE SYSTEMAugust 2021September 2024Allow3620NoNo
17326219Implant DetachmentMay 2021August 2024Allow3811YesNo
17246623LUNG ACCESS DEVICEMay 2021August 2024Allow4020YesNo
16142197REPOSABLE MULTI-FIRE SURGICAL CLIP APPLIERSeptember 2018May 2020Allow2000NoNo
16012818SPECIMEN RETRIEVAL DEVICEJune 2018February 2020Allow2000YesNo
15954389STRETCHABLE STENT AND DELIVERY SYSTEMApril 2018February 2020Allow2200YesNo
15498961Oral DevicesApril 2017November 2019Allow3021NoNo
15452323APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FORMING AN OPENING IN PATIENT'S TISSUEMarch 2017December 2018Allow2201YesNo
15380662Articulating RetractorsDecember 2016March 2020Allow3930YesNo
15273299Ear Cleaning DeviceSeptember 2016June 2018Allow2100YesNo
13764681Device And Kit For Treatment Of Disorders In The Heart Rhythm Regulation SystemFebruary 2013November 2013Allow910YesNo
13675366ANOSCOPE FOR ANO-RECTAL DIAGNOSTIC AND SURGERYNovember 2012January 2014Allow1410YesNo
13669484EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTIONNovember 2012May 2013Allow600YesNo
13661231NASAL SPLINTOctober 2012June 2014Allow1900YesNo
13627618ANASTOMOSIS DEVICE AND METHODSeptember 2012August 2013Allow1110YesNo
13494494NATURAL ORIFICE TRANSLUMENAL ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY (NOTES) DEVICEJune 2012July 2013Allow1300YesNo
13484650Device and Method for Nasal SurgeryMay 2012February 2014Allow2100NoNo
13276575VESSEL OCCLUDING MATERIAL EXTRACTOROctober 2011January 2014Allow2730YesNo
13240254LANCING DEVICE FOR ONE SKIN PUNCTURESeptember 2011August 2012Allow1100YesNo
13223856EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTIONSeptember 2011July 2012Allow1100YesNo
13105820APPARATUS FOR SAFE PERFORMANCE OF TRANSSEPTAL TECHNIQUE AND PLACEMENT AND POSITIONING OF AN ABLATION CATHETERMay 2011March 2013Allow2301YesNo
12804275SUTURE ORGANIZERJuly 2010January 2013Allow3010YesNo
12817100Mitral Valve TreatmentJune 2010March 2013Allow3320YesNo
12801412Integrated double clips applier with division device for clamping clipsJune 2010November 2012Allow3011NoNo
12558094EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTIONSeptember 2009August 2011Allow2421YesNo
12322137EXPLANTING IMPLANTABLE DEVICESJanuary 2009February 2014Allow6031YesYes
12341088FLEXIBLE DEVICE FOR INTRODUCING A MEDICAL APPARATUS INTO A BODYDecember 2008May 2012Allow4130YesNo
12137009INTRAOCULAR LENS INJECTOR AND METHODJune 2008July 2011Allow3720YesNo
11986148EPILATION DEVICENovember 2007January 2011Abandon3821YesNo
11982735Clot capture coilOctober 2007July 2013Allow6050YesNo
11980879EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTIONOctober 2007June 2011Allow4341NoNo
11705360Aortic punchFebruary 2007March 2013Allow6020YesNo
11652011METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GUIDING A NEEDLEJanuary 2007August 2011Allow5550NoNo
11536053CO-AXIAL ACTUATED SCISSORSSeptember 2006January 2011Allow5120NoNo
11335205GUIDEWIRE LOADED STENT FOR DELIVERY THROUGH A CATHETERJanuary 2006September 2013Allow6060YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
82.4%
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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Strategic Recommendations

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

Examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE works in Art Unit 3656 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.1%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE's allowance rate of 97.1% places them in the 88% 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 MILES, JONATHAN WADE receive 1.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 31% 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 MILES, JONATHAN WADE is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 61% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MILES, JONATHAN WADE. 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, 35.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 79% 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 30.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

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. 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 5.7% of allowed cases (in the 87% 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 39% 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.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • 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.