USPTO Examiner RASHID ANNA SALEM - Art Unit 3677

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18783363BELTJuly 2024April 2025Allow920NoNo
18572693PORTABLE ACCESSORY COMPRISING A CASE FOR RECEIVING A PAD CONTAINING A VOLATILE ACTIVE SUBSTANCEDecember 2023April 2025Abandon1600NoNo
18499173HOLDEROctober 2023June 2025Abandon1910NoNo
18460685JEWELRY PIECESeptember 2023June 2025Allow2120NoNo
18451203BUCKLE ASSEMBLYAugust 2023March 2025Allow1910NoNo
18274760TAPE ATTACHMENTJuly 2023January 2025Allow1810NoNo
18226475Cargo Strap Securing AssemblyJuly 2023November 2024Allow1610NoNo
18221080WEB STRAP BUCKLE WITH LOCKING MECHANISMJuly 2023March 2025Allow2010YesNo
18265841NON-PIERCING-TYPE EARRINGJune 2023February 2025Abandon2010NoNo
18195117FIXING BELT ADJUSTING MECHANISM AND WEARABLE DEVICEMay 2023January 2025Allow2010NoNo
18121135Bracelet with FingerprintsMarch 2023March 2025Abandon2410NoNo
18021233FASTENING DEVICE FOR JEWELLERYFebruary 2023June 2025Abandon2820NoNo
18101480ROTATING JEWELRY CLOSUREJanuary 2023November 2024Allow2210NoNo
17993189PORTABLE OBJECT COMPRISING A MIDDLE DEVOID OF FASTENING HORNS AND A REMOVABLE BRACELETNovember 2022March 2025Allow2820NoNo
17990668Wrist Flag and Autograph BandNovember 2022March 2025Abandon3820NoNo
17969547JEWELRY INCLUDING FOOD, BEVERAGE, AND/OR BOTANICAL EXTRACTS AND METHODS OF MAKING SAMEOctober 2022May 2025Abandon3111NoNo
17946233INTERCHANGEABLE CHARM JEWELRYSeptember 2022June 2025Allow3340YesNo
17865793DEVICE FOR ADJUSTING THE LENGTH OF A WRISTLETJuly 2022June 2025Allow3521NoNo
17860207BED COVERING RETENTION ASSEMBLYJuly 2022December 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17677020SIZE ADJUSTABLE MULTI-WRAP JEWELRY WITH ANCHORING LOOPFebruary 2022June 2024Abandon2810NoNo

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 RASHID, ANNA SALEM - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RASHID, ANNA SALEM works in Art Unit 3677 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 52.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 22 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner RASHID, ANNA SALEM's allowance rate of 52.6% places them in the 9% 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 RASHID, ANNA SALEM receive 1.37 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 29% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RASHID, ANNA SALEM is 22 months. This places the examiner in the 83% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +52.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RASHID, ANNA SALEM. This interview benefit is in the 95% 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, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 83% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 26% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

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 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 20.0% of allowed cases (in the 93% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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.