USPTO Examiner ROCCA JOSEPH M - Art Unit 3671

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18679831REFRIGERATED TRAILER DOOR PROTECTORMay 2024March 2026Allow2120NoNo
18711920Hinge-Side Finger Protection DeviceMay 2024October 2025Allow1710NoNo
18257879Sugarcane Harvester with Improved Extractor Assembly Near Discharge AssemblyJune 2023March 2026Allow3310NoNo
18174302PIVOTING COMBINE HEADER TRANSPORT TRAILERFebruary 2023February 2026Allow3510YesNo
18011579LOCKING DEVICE WITH FORCED UNPLUGGING OF CUTTING DECKDecember 2022June 2025Allow3000NoNo
17927278SENSING ARRAY FOR GRAIN TANKNovember 2022September 2025Allow3410NoNo
17965968SUSPENSION SYSTEM FOR ELECTRIC POWER EQUIPMENTOctober 2022January 2026Allow3920NoNo
17961102COMBINE HARVESTER CONCAVE THRESHING BAROctober 2022February 2026Abandon4010NoNo
17552733PLANTER DOWNFORCE AND UPLIFT MONITORING AND CONTROL FEEDBACK DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODSDecember 2021December 2025Allow4810NoNo
17181132SKID STEER TRIMMER ASSEMBLYFebruary 2021July 2025Allow5220YesYes
13544563MOBILIZER FOR EXERCISE, REHABILITATION AND WELLNESSJuly 2012July 2013Allow1310YesNo
12010280AIRBAG DEVICE AND OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION DEVICEJanuary 2008September 2008Allow800NoNo
11772303REAR SUSPENSION ASSEMBLY FOR A DRAG RACING VEHICLEJuly 2007September 2008Allow1500NoNo
11717423BRACKET FOR SECURING SIDE AIRBAG FOR AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLEMarch 2007December 2008Allow2111NoNo
11602843FRAME FOR A SAFETY BELT RETRACTORNovember 2006September 2008Allow2210NoNo
11459183COLLISION OBJECT PROTECTION ASSEMBLYJuly 2006August 2007Allow1330YesNo
11352537SHAFT FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE STEERING COLUMN AND ASSOCIATED ASSEMBLY PROCESSFebruary 2006September 2008Allow3110NoNo
11350138DEVICE FOR SUSPENSION AND LEVEL ADJUSTMENT IN MOTOR VEHICLESFebruary 2006September 2008Allow3101NoNo
11272245AIRBAG ARRANGEMENT AND CONTROL DEVICENovember 2005January 2009Allow3820NoNo
10528163AIR-BAGOctober 2005June 2008Allow3920NoNo
11241483GAS BAG MODULESeptember 2005December 2007Allow2610NoNo
11237423PEDESTRIAN IMPACT SENSING APPARATUS FOR A VEHICLE BUMPERSeptember 2005October 2007Allow2510NoNo
11207805SECURING DEVICE FOR A SEATBELTAugust 2005January 2008Allow2920NoNo
11180541SPEED CONTROL DEVICEJuly 2005September 2008Allow3810NoNo
11143187AIRBAG MODULEJune 2005July 2007Allow2600NoNo
11127523VEHICLE, WHEEL SUSPENSION DEVICE AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLING VEHICLEMay 2005October 2008Allow4130NoNo
11122407PROTECTIVE SLEEVEMay 2005October 2007Allow2910NoNo
11100269DRIVER CONTROLLED WEDGE AND TRACK BAR ADJUSTORSApril 2005September 2007Allow3010NoNo
11056583SENSOR ASSEMBLY INCLUDING A SENSING CHANNEL HAVING A VOID AND AN ASSOCIATED METHODFebruary 2005June 2008Allow4030YesNo
10969911STEERING SYSTEM FOR AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLESOctober 2004November 2007Allow3720NoNo
10899229CROSS-CAR ADJUSTABLE STRAP BUCKLEJuly 2004October 2007Abandon3930YesNo
10497459SHOCK ABSORPTION TYPE STEERING COLUMN DEVICEJune 2004April 2007Allow3410NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ROCCA, JOSEPH M.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
99.6%
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, 100.0% 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 ROCCA, JOSEPH M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ROCCA, JOSEPH M works in Art Unit 3671 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ROCCA, JOSEPH M's allowance rate of 95.8% places them in the 85% 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 ROCCA, JOSEPH M receive 1.38 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 21% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ROCCA, JOSEPH M is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 57% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ROCCA, JOSEPH M. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% 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 75.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 94% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 25.0% of allowed cases (in the 99% 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 42% 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.