USPTO Examiner MACIOROWSKI GODFREY ALEKSANDER - Art Unit 3658

Examiner Information

Name: MACIOROWSKI, GODFREY ALEKSANDER
Art Unit: 3658
Total Cases: 1
Last Active: March 2024

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18618419Enhanced Navigation Instructions with Landmarks Under Difficult Driving ConditionsMarch 2024February 2026Abandon2310NoNo
18443078COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PLANNING THE BEHAVIOR OF A VEHICLEFebruary 2024January 2026Allow2310NoNo
18442494FEATURE DETECTION USING LANGUAGE MODELSFebruary 2024January 2026Allow2310YesNo
18489432INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICEOctober 2023February 2026Abandon2820NoNo
18216350Adjusting Route Travel Time Estimates in an Electronic Map SystemJune 2023March 2026Abandon3320NoNo
18036448WORK MACHINE, CONTROLLER FOR WORK MACHINE, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING WORK MACHINEMay 2023December 2025Allow3220NoNo
17952894SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE WITH DRIVER TRAINING FACILITYSeptember 2022December 2024Abandon2730YesNo
17870128REMOTE OPERATING DEVICE, REMOTE OPERATING SYSTEM, STEERING INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUMJuly 2022February 2026Abandon4340YesNo
16722605NAVIGATION DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROVIDING METHODDecember 2019March 2026Abandon6080YesNo

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 MACIOROWSKI, GODFREY ALEKSANDER - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MACIOROWSKI, GODFREY ALEKSANDER works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 1 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MACIOROWSKI, GODFREY ALEKSANDER's allowance rate of 0.0% places them in the 0% 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 MACIOROWSKI, GODFREY ALEKSANDER receive 8.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 MACIOROWSKI, GODFREY ALEKSANDER is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 37% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.