USPTO Examiner JACKSON DANIELLE MARIE - Art Unit 3657

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18713065Parking Assistance Method and Parking Assistance DeviceMay 2024December 2024Allow700NoNo
18428427ROBOTIC SYSTEM SIMULATION ENGINEJanuary 2024December 2024Allow1110NoNo
18517636SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXTENDING SENSOR AND LIGHTING COVERAGE BETWEEN VEHICLESNovember 2023June 2025Allow1900NoNo
18385038CARRIAGE FOR GUIDED AUTONOMOUS LOCOMOTIONOctober 2023September 2024Allow1030YesNo
18238371SURROUNDING TRAFFIC SPEED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMAugust 2023August 2024Allow1230YesNo
18331632DATA-DRIVEN ROBOT CONTROLJune 2023February 2025Allow2020NoNo
18011561Transporter Network for Determining Robot ActionsDecember 2022May 2025Allow2910YesNo
17979413OBJECT ASSESSMENT DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM STORING COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR OBJECT ASSESSMENT, AND OBJECT ASSESSMENT METHODNovember 2022January 2025Allow2610YesNo
17890603SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FLIGHT CONTROL FOR AN ELECTRIC AIRCRAFTAugust 2022September 2024Allow2540YesNo
17768255HYDRAULIC WORK MACHINE AND REMOTE OPERATION SYSTEMApril 2022June 2025Abandon3810NoNo
17719153AUTONOMOUS LANE MERGING SYSTEM AND METHODApril 2022April 2025Abandon3610NoNo
17657847SYSTEM AND METHOD OF RESPONSE TO AN UNSTABLE APPROACH DURING AN APPROACH TO LANDING FOR AN AIRCRAFTApril 2022March 2025Allow3510YesNo
17656871GRAPH-BASED VEHICLE ROUTE OPTIMIZATION WITH VEHICLE CAPACITY CLUSTERINGMarch 2022April 2025Abandon3610NoNo
17578902VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD, VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM, AND VEHICLE CONTROL PROGRAMJanuary 2022August 2024Allow3110NoNo
17610471ROBOT APPARATUS, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT APPARATUS, AND LOAD COMPENSATION APPARATUSNovember 2021August 2024Allow3310NoNo
17470087SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPERATING ONE OR MORE SELF-DRIVING VEHICLESSeptember 2021June 2024Allow3410YesNo
17412121ROBOTICALLY CONTROLLABLE FIELD GENERATORS FOR TRACKING AN MEDICAL INSTRUMENTAugust 2021October 2024Allow3810NoNo
17203773CONTROL METHOD FOR ROBOT AND ROBOT SYSTEMMarch 2021July 2024Allow4040NoNo
17114464Method for Redundant Control Policies for Safe Operation of an ExoskeletonDecember 2020October 2024Abandon4640NoNo
17025248SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLISION AVOIDANCE USING OBJECT MODELSSeptember 2020September 2024Allow4840YesNo
16389222PROVIDING ASSIST TORQUE IN STEERING SYSTEMS OPERATING WITHOUT A TORQUE SENSORApril 2019December 2024Allow6080YesNo

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 JACKSON, DANIELLE MARIE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner JACKSON, DANIELLE MARIE works in Art Unit 3657 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 78.9%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner JACKSON, DANIELLE MARIE's allowance rate of 78.9% places them in the 40% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by JACKSON, DANIELLE MARIE receive 2.21 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 75% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by JACKSON, DANIELLE MARIE is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 24% 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 +40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by JACKSON, DANIELLE MARIE. This interview benefit is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 21.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 17% 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 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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.

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 4% 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 34% 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 34% 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.

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.