USPTO Examiner CRAIG DANIEL THOMAS - Art Unit 3676

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18725241REPAIRING MICRO ANNULUS FOR SELF-HEALING CEMENTSJune 2024June 2025Allow1110YesNo
18652297WELLBORE OPERATIONS SYSTEM AND METHODMay 2024April 2025Allow1100NoNo
18695578MOBILE LAND RIG WITH A PIVOTAL TOP DRIVE UNITMarch 2024March 2025Allow1200NoNo
18467438POWDER WELD FISHING TOOLSeptember 2023February 2025Allow1710YesNo
18355304CARBON DIOXIDE ENHANCED HYDROCARBON RECOVERY METHODS COUPLED WITH UNDERGROUND HYDROGEN STORAGEJuly 2023March 2025Allow2011NoNo
18170805SLIDING WIRELINE CATCHER AND CUTTER FOR LOST DOWNHOLE WIREFebruary 2023February 2025Allow2410YesNo

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 CRAIG, DANIEL THOMAS - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CRAIG, DANIEL THOMAS works in Art Unit 3676 and has examined 3 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 20 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CRAIG, DANIEL THOMAS's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 100% 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 CRAIG, DANIEL THOMAS receive 1.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 13% 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 CRAIG, DANIEL THOMAS is 20 months. This places the examiner in the 90% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CRAIG, DANIEL THOMAS. This interview benefit is in the 12% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 36% 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 36% 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:

    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.