USPTO Examiner DIPERT FORREST BLAKE - Art Unit 3783

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18880325DRUG INJECTION DEVICEDecember 2024December 2025Allow1110YesNo
17901816INDWELLING CATHETER, MEDICAL VALVE, AND CATHETER ASSEMBLYSeptember 2022February 2026Abandon4110NoNo
17764421Injection Device with an End-of-Dose IndicatorMarch 2022November 2025Allow4420YesNo
17588668LUER LOCK INTRAVENOUS CONNECTORJanuary 2022January 2026Abandon4750NoNo
17587824AUTOINJECTORJanuary 2022June 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17586745INJECTION GUIDANCE TEMPLATEJanuary 2022June 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17620982RETRACTABLE NEEDLE WITH DAMPINGDecember 2021August 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17618899INFUSION DEVICEDecember 2021March 2025Abandon3910NoNo
17612409Method for Determining Syringe Parameters by a Syringe Pump, and ApparatusesNovember 2021September 2025Allow4610YesNo
17612076DRIVE MECHANISM FOR A MEDICAMENT DELIVERY DEVICENovember 2021May 2025Allow4110NoNo
17611821ASSEMBLY FOR A DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE AND DRUG DELIVERY DEVICENovember 2021August 2025Allow4520NoNo
17602777CONTROL OF BALLOON SIZE IN BOWEL IRRIGATION SYSTEMOctober 2021July 2025Allow4620YesNo
17487093LIQUID MEDICINE ADMINISTRATION DEVICESeptember 2021January 2025Allow3910NoNo
17476925METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ACTUATING A CLEARANCE DEVICE FOR CLEARING OBSTRUCTIONS FROM MEDICAL TUBESSeptember 2021December 2025Abandon5120NoYes
17471103PAINLESS SYRINGE TO REDUCE THE NOISE AND FRICTION GENERATED WHEN PERFORATING THE ALVEOLAR BONESeptember 2021January 2025Abandon4010NoNo
17437184DEVICE FOR SKIN CARE, COSMETICS, AND MEDICAL TREATMENTSeptember 2021May 2025Abandon4420NoNo
17465467CATHETER ASSEMBLYSeptember 2021January 2026Abandon5230YesNo
17408699TRANSDERMAL DELIVERY OF HIGH VISCOSITY BIOACTIVE AGENTSAugust 2021February 2025Allow4211NoNo
17426267VASCULAR CATHETER AND METHODJuly 2021November 2025Allow5230YesNo
17425514DEVICE, METHOD, AND TUBE DEVICE FOR DELIVERY OF INFUSATE FOR HUMANSJuly 2021April 2025Abandon4520NoNo
17364156SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING VENOUS NEEDLE DISLODGEMENTJune 2021February 2025Allow4320YesNo
17294237AUTOINJECTORMay 2021January 2025Allow4420NoNo
17291171DEVICE FOR CLEANING LIQUID FROM AN EYE OF A SUBJECTMay 2021September 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17306174PHOTOOXIDATIVE INACTIVATION OF PATHOGENS INCLUDING SARS-CoV-2May 2021September 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17289439SYRINGE ACCESSORY DEVICE AND METHODS OF USEApril 2021October 2024Abandon4110YesNo
17289371Medical Injection SystemApril 2021January 2026Allow5740YesNo
17282263DETECTION ASSEMBLIES FOR INFUSION PUMPSApril 2021July 2024Abandon4001NoNo
17282245DRUG DELIVERY DEVICEApril 2021August 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17279642A HAND-HELD, DIRECTIONAL, MULTI- FREQUENCY PROBE FOR SPINAL NEEDLE PLACEMENTMarch 2021August 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17278870DEVICE FOR GENERATING COLD PLASMA COMPRISING ELECTRODES AND DIELECTRICSMarch 2021September 2024Abandon4110NoNo
17262002AUTOMATIC INJECTOR FOR STANDARD MEDICAL SYRINGESJanuary 2021December 2024Abandon4720NoNo
16816412PLATFORM FOR DELIVERING SECUREMENT DEVICEMarch 2020September 2025Allow6060YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
10.9%
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

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

Examiner DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE works in Art Unit 3783 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 42.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE's allowance rate of 42.3% places them in the 8% 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 DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE receive 1.69 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 35% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% 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 +47.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DIPERT, FORREST BLAKE. This interview benefit is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

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 28.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

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 23% 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.

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 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 49% 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.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.