USPTO Examiner HIGHLAND RACHEL S - Art Unit 3774

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18634439ROBOTIC DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR CARDIAC IMPLANTSApril 2024January 2025Allow911NoNo
18429549METHODS AND DEVICES FOR DEPLOYMENT OF A TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVEFebruary 2024November 2024Allow1020YesNo
18556447VALVE LEAFLET OBSTRUCTION REPAIR CLIP AND REPAIR SYSTEM THEREOFOctober 2023April 2024Allow610YesNo
18117381CIRCULAR CAPSULOTOMY INCISION TOOLMarch 2023June 2023Allow400NoNo
17989327OCCLUSION DEVICES AND METHODS OF THEIR MANUFACTURE AND USENovember 2022October 2024Abandon2320YesNo
17974126METHODS AND DEVICES FOR CROSSING CHRONIC TOTAL OCCLUSIONSOctober 2022April 2024Allow1710NoNo
17865723SUTURE ANCHOR CONSTRUCT AND DEPLOYMENT DEVICEJuly 2022July 2024Allow2520NoNo
17771910SURGICAL PORTApril 2022September 2023Allow1720YesNo
17574720DELIVERY SYSTEM WITH INLINE SHEATHJanuary 2022December 2023Allow2300YesNo
17595919SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DELIVERY OF CHORDAE REPLACEMENT SYSTEMNovember 2021April 2025Allow4120NoNo
17531328DEMINERALIZED BONE PAPERNovember 2021May 2024Allow3031YesNo
17442337FIBROSIS-INDUCING DRUG-ELUTING STENT FOR BLOCKING ELECTRIC CONDUCTIONOctober 2021March 2025Abandon4230NoNo
17489087IMPLANT DELIVERY SLEEVES HAVING NON-TAPERED TUBULAR WALLS WITH CONSTRICTED IMPLANT DELIVERY CHANNELS FOR INSERTING IMPLANTS INTO TISSUE POCKETSSeptember 2021June 2024Allow3300YesNo
17383510PERCUTANEOUS ATRIAL AND VENTRICULAR SEPTAL DEFECT CLOSURE DEVICEJuly 2021July 2024Allow3610NoNo
17378672TISSUE FIXATION DEVICES AND A TRANSORAL ENDOSCOPIC GASTROESOPHAGEAL FLAP VALVE RESTORATION DEVICE AND ASSEMBLY USING SAMEJuly 2021November 2023Abandon2810NoNo
17361941LOW PROFILE ELECTRODES FOR AN ANGIOPLASTY SHOCK WAVE CATHETERJune 2021October 2024Allow4020YesNo
17359964PROSTHETIC VALVEJune 2021September 2024Allow3920YesNo
17353702APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MONITORING VALVE EXPANSIONJune 2021June 2025Allow4711NoNo
17299259STEPWISE-CLAMPING TYPE VALVE PROSTHESIS AND DELIVERY SYSTEM THEREOFJune 2021April 2025Allow4611NoNo
17335271PRE-LOADED MULTIPORT DELIVERY DEVICEJune 2021August 2024Allow3901YesNo
17290153SURGICAL DEVICE FOR IMPLANT REMOVALApril 2021August 2024Allow4020YesNo
17284868PROSTHETIC KNEE SPACER AND METHOD OF USING THE SAMEApril 2021May 2025Abandon4921NoNo
17282994MODULAR VALVE REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED DEVICES AND METHODS OF USEApril 2021November 2024Allow4311YesNo
17282017PROSTHESIS EXTRACTION SYSTEMApril 2021September 2024Allow4211YesNo
17200213ANTI-BACKSPIN COMPONENT FOR VASCULAR PROSTHESIS DELIVERY DEVICEMarch 2021May 2025Allow5010YesNo
17195054ALL-SUTURE SUTURE ANCHOR SYSTEMS AND METHODSMarch 2021August 2023Allow2900NoNo
17180169DEVICES FOR TREATING PARAVALVULAR LEAKAGE AND ASSOCIATED METHODSFebruary 2021September 2024Abandon4320YesNo
16950196DISTAL END SUPPORTED TISSUE SLITTING APPARATUSNovember 2020November 2023Allow3610YesNo
17092063DEVICES FOR REDUCING LEFT ATRIAL PRESSURE, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING SAMENovember 2020August 2024Allow4521YesNo
17088291FLEXIBLE DRIVE TUBE FOR LAPAROSCOPIC DEVICENovember 2020June 2024Allow4330YesNo
17052127APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CATARACT EXTRACTIONOctober 2020March 2024Abandon4111NoNo
17074868DEVICES AND METHODS FOR CRIMPING PROSTHETIC IMPLANTSOctober 2020March 2025Allow5331YesNo
17039216ENDOSCOPIC SUTURING SYSTEMSeptember 2020February 2024Allow4120YesNo
16967999SUTURE FASTENERSAugust 2020February 2024Allow4211NoNo
16905645Minimally Invasive Repair of Heart Valve LeafletsJune 2020January 2024Allow4320YesNo
16778060ENDOSCOPIC SUTURING SYSTEMJanuary 2020November 2023Allow4630YesNo
16667030DEVICES AND METHODS FOR CUTTING LENTICULAR TISSUEOctober 2019July 2023Allow4430YesNo
16551237LANCING DEVICE WITH SIDE ACTIVATED CHARGE AND EJECT MECHANISMSAugust 2019April 2024Allow5621YesNo
16539105DEVICES AND METHODS FOR ISOLATING A TREATMENT REGION IN THE BODY FROM OTHER REGIONSAugust 2019September 2024Abandon6041YesNo
16456692Endoscopic Needle AssemblyJune 2019August 2022Abandon3811NoNo
16238747INNER TUBULAR MEMBER FOR ANGLED ROTARY SURGICAL INSTRUMENTJanuary 2019March 2024Allow6031YesNo
14315246SPACE FILLING DEVICESJune 2014October 2023Allow6091NoYes
13974920CORING TOOLAugust 2013July 2018Allow5920NoNo
13556326Two Stage Plunger for Intraocular Lens InjectorJuly 2012March 2013Allow800NoNo
12486088METHOD OF SUTURINGJune 2009December 2012Allow4230NoYes
12514359METHOD FOR DELIVERING AN OCCLUSION PLUGMay 2009December 2011Allow3110NoNo
11719898TWO STAGE PLUNGER FOR INTRAOCULAR LENS INJECTORApril 2009December 2011Allow5520YesNo
12380418MEDICAL CLAMP AND METHOD OF USEFebruary 2009March 2012Allow3620YesNo
11996201Method for Prolonging the Action on Acupuncture Points for Reducing Body WeightMay 2008July 2013Allow6031NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HIGHLAND, RACHEL S.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
18.9%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
8.8%
Lower 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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner HIGHLAND, RACHEL S - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HIGHLAND, RACHEL S works in Art Unit 3774 and has examined 47 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.0%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HIGHLAND, RACHEL S's allowance rate of 83.0% places them in the 50% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by HIGHLAND, RACHEL S receive 1.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 57% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HIGHLAND, RACHEL S is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 7% 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 +13.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HIGHLAND, RACHEL S. This interview benefit is in the 56% 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, 38.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 87% 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 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 9% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 20% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

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 5.1% of allowed cases (in the 79% 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:

  • 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.