USPTO Examiner MORALES YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA - Art Unit 3774

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18408515MEDIAL STABILIZED ORTHOPAEDIC TIBIAL INSERTJanuary 2024December 2024Allow1210NoNo
18507814INTRAOCULAR LENS HAVING HINGED HAPTIC STRUCTURESNovember 2023October 2024Allow1110YesNo
18369813PARTIAL GLENOID ARTHROPLASTYSeptember 2023December 2024Abandon1510NoNo
18465323SULCUS FIXATION FRAMESeptember 2023June 2024Allow920NoNo
18450667TIBIAL TRAY INSERTERAugust 2023August 2024Allow1210NoNo
17824061JOINT REPLACEMENT PROSTHESIS WITH TRANS-CORTICAL STEMSMay 2022November 2024Allow3020YesNo
17735359SACROILIAC JOINT FUSION SYSTEMMay 2022November 2024Abandon3121NoNo
17726168TIBIAL-TRAY SYSTEMApril 2022October 2024Allow3020NoNo
17724925PROSTHETIC FEMORAL HEAD AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAMEApril 2022May 2024Allow2510NoNo
17688346BONE IMPLANT DEVICEMarch 2022May 2024Allow2721YesNo
17653646REFRACTIVE EXTENDED DEPTH OF FOCUS INTRAOCULAR LENS, AND METHODS OF USE AND MANUFACTUREMarch 2022October 2024Allow3230NoNo
17653053LOW-PROFILE PROSTHESES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODSMarch 2022July 2024Allow2931NoNo
17652492TIBIAL TRAY INSERTERFebruary 2022October 2023Allow2010NoNo
17561690FEMORAL PROSTHESIS AND KNEE PROSTHESIS WITH THEMDecember 2021February 2024Allow2520NoNo
17541683SURGICAL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR IMPLANTING AN ARTIFICIAL CORNEADecember 2021November 2023Allow2310NoNo
17455893EXPANDABLE AUGMENT SYSTEM FOR ACETABULAR CUPNovember 2021November 2023Allow2421YesNo
17611941IMPLANTABLE NIPPLENovember 2021August 2024Allow3300YesNo
17527830NEGATIVE POISSON`S RATIO MATERIALS FOR INTRAOCULAR LENSESNovember 2021May 2024Allow3021NoNo
17525402ACETABULAR IMPLANT AND METHOD FOR DEFORMING THIS IMPLANTNovember 2021July 2024Allow3221NoNo
17523047GLAUCOMA IMPLANT DEVICENovember 2021November 2023Allow2420NoNo
17454089Self-accomodating lens and method for controlling a self-accomodating lensNovember 2021September 2023Allow2321YesNo
17604650MINIMALLY INVASIVE MAGNETIC VOCAL FOLD MANIPULATOROctober 2021October 2024Allow3610NoNo
17501052Posterior Chamber Phakic Intraocular LensOctober 2021February 2024Allow2820NoNo
17479947PARTIAL GLENOID ARTHROPLASTYSeptember 2021November 2023Abandon2611NoNo
17381135DUAL MOBILITY ACETABULAR COMPONENTJuly 2021July 2024Allow3620NoNo
17372442MEDIAL STABILIZED ORTHOPAEDIC TIBIAL INSERTJuly 2021May 2023Allow2210NoNo
17413359FASTENING DEVICE FOR AN INTRAOCULAR LENSJune 2021July 2023Abandon2610NoNo
17312733SEPARATELY RELEASABLE AORTIC VALVE STENTJune 2021August 2023Allow2620YesNo
17311057Animal Knee Joint Implant Reflecting Anatomical Structure of AnimalJune 2021December 2024Allow4320NoNo
17316420SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE FOR CAROTID STENTINGMay 2021February 2025Abandon4640NoNo
17231374OPHTHALMIC LENSES HAVING AN EXTENDED DEPTH OF FOCUS FOR IMPROVING INTERMEDIATE VISIONApril 2021October 2023Allow3011YesNo
17282918CONSTRAINING MECHANISMS FOR SELECTIVE DEPLOYMENT AND ASSOCIATED METHODSApril 2021September 2024Allow4210NoNo
17282403INTRODUCER DEVICES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFApril 2021August 2024Allow4011NoNo
17281889BIOSCAFFOLD FOR IN VIVO USEMarch 2021September 2024Abandon4210NoNo
17273970ARTIFICIAL BLOOD VESSELMarch 2021January 2024Allow3400YesNo
17150546Optical Material and Method for Modifying the Refractive IndexJanuary 2021October 2024Allow4530NoNo
17254573ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX, IN PARTICULAR FOR A MAMMARY PROSTHESISDecember 2020May 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17121502OPHTHALMIC IMPLANTS WITH EXTENDED DEPTH OF FIELD AND ENHANCED DISTANCE VISUAL ACUITYDecember 2020December 2023Abandon3610NoNo
16973816METHOD TO PRODUCE A PROSTHETIC COMPONENT, AND PROSTHETIC COMPONENT THUS PRODUCEDDecember 2020July 2024Abandon4301NoNo
17054283CONTROLLING RATE OF BLOOD FLOW TO RIGHT ATRIUMNovember 2020November 2024Allow4811NoNo
17083054INTRAOCULAR LENS HAVING HINGED HAPTIC STRUCTURESOctober 2020March 2024Abandon4120YesNo
17080779RETINAL PROSTHESESOctober 2020July 2024Allow4410NoNo
17016628IMPERMEABLE INNER SHELL FOR A BREAST IMPLANTSeptember 2020August 2024Allow4800NoNo
16920533ELECTROMYOGRAPHIC SENSING AND VISION MODIFICATIONJuly 2020March 2024Abandon4411NoNo
16958306DIFFRACTIVE ARTIFICIAL OPHTHALMIC LENS WITH OPTIMISED APODIZATION AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH ARTIFICIAL OPHTHALMIC LENSJune 2020November 2023Allow4121NoNo
16910711ADJUSTABLE BREAST IMPLANT WITH INTEGRAL INJECTION PORTJune 2020May 2024Abandon4710NoNo
16858299INCISED DESCEMET'S MEMBRANE AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USINGApril 2020November 2024Allow5531NoNo

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 MORALES, YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MORALES, YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA works in Art Unit 3774 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 70.6%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MORALES, YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA's allowance rate of 70.6% places them in the 33% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by MORALES, YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA receive 1.44 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 MORALES, YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 37% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +19.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MORALES, YASNIARY DE LA CARIDA. This interview benefit is in the 62% 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, 45.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 96% 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 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

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 46% 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 25.0% of allowed cases (in the 94% 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:

  • 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.