USPTO Examiner STANEK KELSEY L - Art Unit 3741

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18841132COMPLIANCE SPRING MOUNTING METHOD AND ASSEMBLYAugust 2024February 2026Allow1710NoNo
18751472TEMPERATURE RANGE EXTENSION FOR ELECTRIC COMPRESSORJune 2024February 2026Allow2010NoNo
18749223System for Cooling Catalyzed Combustion Exhaust Gas of Hydrocarbon Fueled Internal Combustion Engines Used in Small Power Equipment and Power ToolsJune 2024February 2026Allow2020NoNo
18648416ELECTRIC COMPRESSOR ASSEMBLYApril 2024February 2026Allow2110NoNo
18597918AIR COMPRESSORMarch 2024February 2026Allow2301NoNo
18431557AIR BLOWING APPARATUS WITH AUXILIARY FAN HOUSING AND AUXILIARY BAFFLEFebruary 2024February 2026Allow2440YesNo
18404028SQUEEZING PERISTALTIC PUMP FOR CONTINUOUS TRANSFER, AND FLUID TRANSFER METHODJanuary 2024February 2026Allow2510NoNo
18043473Catalytic Converter for a Motor Vehicle, as Well as a Motor VehicleFebruary 2023November 2025Allow3220NoNo
17968258SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SEQUENTIAL DELIVERY OF THERAPEUTIC COMPOSITIONSOctober 2022February 2026Allow4020NoNo
17715091IRRIGATION IN A PHACOEMULSIFICATION SYSTEMApril 2022November 2025Allow4310NoNo
17048047INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE ARRANGEMENTOctober 2020September 2021Allow1110NoNo
16897042Tappet Assembly for Use in a High-Pressure Fuel System of an Internal Combustion EngineJune 2020May 2021Allow1110NoNo
16755124Valve Gear for a Combustion Engine of a Motor VehicleApril 2020August 2021Allow1610NoNo
16629047ACTUATOR ARRANGEMENTJanuary 2020March 2021Allow1410NoNo
16584428DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING LUBRICATION OF ROCKER ARMS OF ENGINE WITH CYLINDER DEACTIVATION FUNCTIONSeptember 2019July 2020Allow1010NoNo
16450105TAPPET ASSEMBLY FOR USE IN A HIGH-PRESSURE FUEL SYSTEM OF AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJune 2019February 2020Allow800NoNo
16431004TAPPET ASSEMBLY FOR USE IN A HIGH-PRESSURE FUEL SYSTEM OF AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJune 2019June 2020Allow1210NoNo
16426480VALVE OPENING-CLOSING TIMING CONTROL DEVICEMay 2019July 2021Allow2530NoNo
16287153VARIABLE VALVE ACTUATION SYSTEMFebruary 2019July 2021Allow2920NoNo
16285472VARIABLE VALVE MECHANISM OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEFebruary 2019July 2020Allow1720YesNo
16275846VARIABLE VALVE TIMING CONTROL DEVICEFebruary 2019January 2020Allow1110NoNo
16256294VALVE TIMING CONTROLLERJanuary 2019March 2020Allow1410NoNo
16092583VALVE TIMING ADJUSTMENT DEVICEOctober 2018July 2020Allow2130YesNo
16033617CONTROLLER FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJuly 2018December 2019Allow1710NoNo
16023501INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJune 2018February 2020Allow2010NoNo
15899920CAMSHAFT PHASER CONTROL FOR VARIABLE DISPLACEMENT ENGINESFebruary 2018October 2020Allow3210NoNo
15898342SWITCHABLE ROCKER ARM WITH LASH ADJUSTMENTFebruary 2018June 2019Allow1610NoNo
15825980VALVE OPENING/CLOSING TIMING CONTROL DEVICENovember 2017September 2019Allow2210YesNo
15710199LATCH INTERFACE FOR A VALVE ACTUATING DEVICESeptember 2017September 2020Allow3510YesNo
15690577SWITCHABLE ROCKER ARM WITH A TRAVEL STOPAugust 2017June 2019Allow2210NoNo
15667552SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A VARIABLE CAM TIMING PHASE CONTROL APPARATUS WITH ISOLATORAugust 2017February 2020Allow3010NoNo
15666288SYSTEMS, METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ROCKER ARM POSITION SENSINGAugust 2017September 2020Allow3830YesNo
15477436HEAT PUMP FOR WARMING ENGINE COOLANTApril 2017March 2020Allow6030YesNo
15475702EXHAUST HEAT RECOVERY DEVICEMarch 2017September 2019Allow3040NoNo
13822540CONTROL DEVICE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEMarch 2013May 2015Allow2610NoNo
13764141SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING SUPPLEMENTAL AQUEOUS THERMAL ENERGYFebruary 2013April 2014Allow1410YesNo
13503664Method for retrofitting a fossil-fueled power station with a carbon dioxide separation deviceAugust 2012January 2015Allow3310NoNo
13478275Two Piston, Concentric Cylinder, Alpha Free Piston Stirling MachineMay 2012June 2014Allow2500NoNo
13511158METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPERATING A SOLAR STEAM SYSTEMMay 2012December 2014Allow3120YesNo
13443558Hydraulic Driving Device for Working MachineApril 2012February 2014Allow2200NoNo
13267779METHOD FOR MEASURING THE QUALITY OF AMMONIA INJECTION FOR AN EXHAUST GAS AFTER TREATMENT SYSTEM OF A VEHICLEOctober 2011July 2014Allow3320NoNo
13006180METHOD FOR OPERATING POST INJECTIONS OF FUEL IN AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJanuary 2011September 2013Allow3210NoNo
12866390HIGH-TEMPERATURE RADIATOR STORAGE YARD GENERATING APPARATUSAugust 2010July 2013Allow3510NoNo
12822689THERMAL STORAGE SYSTEMJune 2010May 2014Allow4730NoNo
12738275WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION DEVICE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEApril 2010October 2014Allow5420NoNo

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 STANEK, KELSEY L - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner STANEK, KELSEY L works in Art Unit 3741 and has examined 35 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 22 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner STANEK, KELSEY L'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 STANEK, KELSEY L receive 1.43 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 23% 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 STANEK, KELSEY L is 22 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 STANEK, KELSEY L. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 30.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 59% 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 57.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 83% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 43% 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 47% 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.

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.