USPTO Examiner BUKSA CHRISTOPHER ALLEN - Art Unit 3658

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18586204DIRECTING MULTIPLE TARGETS WITHOUT INTERFERENCEFebruary 2024March 2025Allow1230YesYes
18403849Using Context Based Machine Learning for Generation of Customized Driving OutputsJanuary 2024March 2025Allow1410YesNo
18358193COMPLIANCE CORRECTION IN A ROBOTIC SYSTEMJuly 2023January 2025Allow1720YesNo
18344975SEGMENTING MULTI-FINGERED SOFT GRIPPER PORTION BASED ON OPTICAL FLOWJune 2023June 2025Allow2400NoNo
18164631PATH PLANNING DURING EXECUTION OF ROBOT CONTROLFebruary 2023May 2025Allow2810YesNo
18149801BECOME AN AV TEST OPERATOR AS A PASSENGERJanuary 2023May 2025Allow2820YesNo
18003261STATE MONITORING DEVICE AND STATE MONITORING METHOD FOR INDUSTRIAL MACHINERYDecember 2022June 2025Allow3020NoNo
18083687Collaborative RobotDecember 2022April 2025Allow2720NoNo
17997508SURGICAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM WITH ADJUSTABLE ANGLE OF APPROACHOctober 2022March 2025Allow2810NoNo
17819685Robotic Grasping Via RF-Visual Sensing And LearningAugust 2022April 2025Allow3220NoNo
17782216SURGICAL ASSIST ROBOT AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAMEJune 2022November 2024Allow2910NoNo
17781141COORDINATE SYSTEM ALIGNMENT METHOD, ALIGNMENT SYSTEM, AND ALIGNMENT DEVICE FOR ROBOTMay 2022March 2025Allow3410NoNo
17732568GAIT CONTROL METHOD, BIPED ROBOT, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMApril 2022October 2024Allow3010NoNo
17767998Traversal Method and System, Robot, and Readable Storage MediumApril 2022February 2025Allow3510NoNo
17764138AUTONOMOUS ROBOT, MOVING PATH PLANNING METHOD AND APPARATUS THEREFOR, AND STORAGE MEDIUMMarch 2022October 2024Allow3110NoNo
17666550VISUAL POSITIONING METHOD AND SYSTEM BASED ON GAUSSIAN PROCESS, AND STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2022July 2024Allow2910NoNo
17666144IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, PRODUCTION SYSTEM, PRODUCT MANUFACTURING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2022September 2024Allow3110NoNo
17624865INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMJanuary 2022August 2024Allow3110NoNo
17624283SURGICAL ASSISTANT DEVICEDecember 2021April 2025Abandon3920NoNo
17622452GROWING SYSTEM AND METHODDecember 2021August 2024Allow3110NoNo
17561472AUTONOMOUS ITEM DELIVERYDecember 2021March 2025Abandon3920NoNo
17466568POWER PLATFORM WITH FOUR WHEEL STEERING/REAR WHEEL STEERINGSeptember 2021June 2024Allow3430NoNo
17386001SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LASER AND IMAGING ODOMETRY FOR AUTONOMOUS ROBOTSJuly 2021July 2024Allow3620NoNo
17375842AIRCRAFT GUIDANCE WITH A MULTI-VEHICLE NETWORKJuly 2021August 2024Allow3730NoNo
17414463Method for Determining an Integrity RangeJune 2021June 2025Allow4850NoYes
17303964SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AND AUTO TOGAJune 2021July 2024Allow3730NoNo
17293243INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHODMay 2021June 2024Allow3720NoNo
17135167APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING WRAP-AROUND VIEW BASED ON 3D DISTANCE INFORMATIONDecember 2020August 2024Allow4430NoNo
17037352AUTOMATIC LAWNMOWERSeptember 2020October 2024Abandon4830NoNo
16978628CONTROLLER AND CONTROL METHODSeptember 2020April 2025Abandon5560NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
7.4%
Lower 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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 28 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 85.7%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN's allowance rate of 85.7% places them in the 58% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN receive 1.96 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +16.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BUKSA, CHRISTOPHER ALLEN. This interview benefit is in the 60% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 66% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 45.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 64% 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 17% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 5% 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:

  • 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.

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.