USPTO Examiner DIOP FATIMATA SAHRA - Art Unit 3783

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17127642DUAL CARTRIDGE CONTAINER APPLICATOR WITH NEEDLE PENETRATION CONNECTION TO TIPDecember 2020September 2024Allow4540NoNo
16952433BENEFIT AGENT DELIVERY SYSTEM COMPRISING MICROCELLS HAVING AN ELECTRICALLY ERODING SEALING LAYERNovember 2020January 2024Allow3821NoNo
16951451STERILE CONNECTOR AND CANNULA ASSEMBLYNovember 2020January 2025Allow5030NoNo
17087583Fixture For Filling Hypodermic SyringesNovember 2020September 2023Allow3420NoNo
17051579IMPLANTABLE ACCESS DEVICE FOR ACCESSING THE VASCULAR SYSTEM OF A HUMAN OR ANIMAL BODY, PARTICULARLY SUBCUTANEOUSLY IMPLANTABLE ACCESS PORTOctober 2020February 2025Allow5240NoNo
17048007SHOCK ABSORBER FOR INJECTION DEVICESOctober 2020October 2024Allow4841YesNo
17046403Tool for Removing a Cap From a Medical Injection DeviceOctober 2020September 2024Allow4731NoNo
17045676ELECTROHYDRAULIC MICROJET DRUG DELIVERY DEVICEOctober 2020September 2023Allow3630NoNo
17035989WEARABLE AUTO-INJECTOR DEVICES AND METHODSSeptember 2020September 2024Abandon4830NoNo
17034821CANNULA FIXATION DEVICESeptember 2020March 2025Allow5340NoNo
17030336CARTRIDGE HOLDER AND MEDICINE INJECTION DEVICE COMPRSING THE SAMESeptember 2020August 2023Abandon3520NoNo
16964419TUBE ASSEMBLY AND DISSOLVABLE TIPJuly 2020May 2024Abandon4610NoNo
16918471MEDICAL TUBEJuly 2020July 2024Abandon4920YesNo
16772565Therapeutic Agent Delivery Devices Having Integrated Pain Mitigation, and Methods for Using the SameJune 2020May 2024Abandon4721NoNo
16870574LARYNGEAL MASK AIRWAY FOR GASTROSCOPYMay 2020July 2024Allow5020NoNo
16741998CATHETER FLUSH DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND METHODSJanuary 2020June 2025Allow6041YesNo

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 DIOP, FATIMATA SAHRA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner DIOP, FATIMATA SAHRA works in Art Unit 3783 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 68.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner DIOP, FATIMATA SAHRA's allowance rate of 68.8% places them in the 32% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by DIOP, FATIMATA SAHRA receive 2.81 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DIOP, FATIMATA SAHRA is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 10% 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 -2.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DIOP, FATIMATA SAHRA. This interview benefit is in the 9% 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, 27.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% 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 41.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 65% 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 73% 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 45% 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 51% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions more often than average when claims are allowable but formal matters remain (MPEP § 714.14).

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.