USPTO Examiner HERRERA MICHAEL J - Art Unit 3668

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17131851SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND MAINTAINING A FLEET OF ELECTRIC VEHICLESDecember 2020August 2024Allow4430NoNo
17250251VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE AND VEHICLE CONTROL METHODDecember 2020December 2023Abandon3620NoNo
17058571VEHICLE REPOSITIONING ON MOBILITY-ON-DEMAND PLATFORMSNovember 2020March 2024Allow4030YesNo
17057896DEVICE FOR DETECTING THE PRESENCE OF AN OCCUPANT INSIDE THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT OF A VEHICLENovember 2020May 2025Allow5440NoNo
16952856METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REPLACING VEHICLE PARTS USING IN-VEHICLE NETWORK BASED ON VEHICLE ETHERNETNovember 2020April 2025Allow5330NoNo
17055583A RIDER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND METHODNovember 2020January 2025Abandon5030NoNo
16979902COOLING METHOD AND COOLING DEVICE OF ELECTRIC MOTORSeptember 2020July 2024Allow4620YesNo
16979802CRANE AND CRANE CONTROL METHODSeptember 2020March 2025Allow5530YesNo
16978689FLUID CONTROL SYSTEMSeptember 2020December 2024Abandon5120NoNo
16977695REMOTE CONTROL TERMINAL, AND WORKING VEHICLE PROVIDED WITH REMOTE CONTROL TERMINALSeptember 2020June 2024Allow4520YesNo

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 HERRERA, MICHAEL J - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HERRERA, MICHAEL J works in Art Unit 3668 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 70.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HERRERA, MICHAEL J's allowance rate of 70.0% places them in the 34% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by HERRERA, MICHAEL J receive 2.70 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 HERRERA, MICHAEL J is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 8% 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 +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HERRERA, MICHAEL J. This interview benefit is in the 92% 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 74% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 77% 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 37% 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 43% 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.