USPTO Examiner POLLOCK ZACHARY JOSEPH - Art Unit 3715

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19259470STORAGE MEDIUM, GAME SYSTEM, AND GAME PROCESSING METHODJuly 2025February 2026Allow810YesNo
19215307Game Scene Management Method and System, Apparatus, and MediumMay 2025November 2025Allow610NoNo
17867007Interactive Instructional AidJuly 2022January 2026Abandon4210NoNo
17730263System and Methodology Providing Dynamic Instructional Interactivity in Connection with Computer Based ApplicationsApril 2022November 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17726196PROGRAMMABLE ELECTRONIC CIRCUIT EVALUATION DEVICE FOR EDUCATIONApril 2022October 2025Abandon4210NoNo
17723602CLOUD-BASED AI-POWERED ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING SYSTEM AND METHODApril 2022November 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17719865SIMULATOR ARRAY TRAINING SYSTEMApril 2022February 2026Allow4620YesNo
17677880PROVIDING TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT OF PHYSIATRICS AND COSMETICS PROCESSES ON A PHYSICAL MODEL HAVING TACTILE SENSORS, USING A VIRTUAL REALITY DEVICEFebruary 2022August 2025Abandon4210NoNo
17665776HYBRID VIDEO PRESENTATIONS WITH MULTI-VARIANT PRE-RECORDING AND ALTERNATIVE FLOWSFebruary 2022September 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17592607Interactive Educational ToolFebruary 2022July 2025Allow4210NoNo
17577628UPPER LIMB TRAINING SYSTEM AND METHOD AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMJanuary 2022March 2026Abandon5020NoNo
17608330SURGICAL OPERATION TRAINING SIMULATORNovember 2021November 2025Abandon4911NoNo
17602784INVISIBLE OBSERVATION MODE IN THE ONLINE LEARNING PROCESSOctober 2021July 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17495886ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DISPARATE DATA SOURCES FOR GENERATING PERSONALIZED LEARNING EXPERIENCESOctober 2021July 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17483084SECURE CODING ADAPTIVE TRAINING SYSTEM AND METHODSeptember 2021July 2025Abandon4610NoNo
174767833D Physical Replica Of A Cardiac Structure And A Method For Manufacturing The SameSeptember 2021September 2025Allow4820NoNo
17468470METHODS, SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND DEVICES FOR CORRECTING PLAYING ACTIONS PERFORMED BY A PLAYER FOR PLAYING A GAMESeptember 2021September 2025Abandon4820NoNo
17468484APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING QUESTIONS FOR LEARNINGSeptember 2021April 2025Allow4410NoNo
17464666PROGRAMMABLE EDUCATION DEVICESeptember 2021May 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17431970Apparatus and Method for Teaching Wound DebridementAugust 2021October 2025Allow5020YesNo
17404435Game-Based Lesson Plans and LearningAugust 2021March 2026Abandon5420YesNo

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 POLLOCK, ZACHARY JOSEPH - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner POLLOCK, ZACHARY JOSEPH works in Art Unit 3715 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 30.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner POLLOCK, ZACHARY JOSEPH's allowance rate of 30.0% places them in the 4% 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 POLLOCK, ZACHARY JOSEPH receive 1.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 22% 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 POLLOCK, ZACHARY JOSEPH is 48 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 +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by POLLOCK, ZACHARY JOSEPH. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 4% 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 42% 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 45% 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.