USPTO Examiner LANGE ERIC A - Art Unit 3783

Examiner Information

Name: LANGE, ERIC A
Art Unit: 3783
Total Cases: 2
Last Active: September 2024

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18893349Boomerang Hydro MultiplierSeptember 2024June 2025Allow920YesNo
18886500TURBINE ENGINE AIRFOIL WITH COOLING HOLE PATTERNSeptember 2024October 2025Allow1300NoNo
18710469ROTOR BLADE ACTIVE FLAPMay 2024January 2026Allow2010NoNo
18643747PROPULSOR FAN AND DRIVE SYSTEMApril 2024February 2026Allow2210NoNo
18640975POWERPLANT WITH INTEGRATED HEAT PIPEApril 2024July 2025Allow1510NoNo
18700699ELEMENT AND METHOD FOR COMPENSATION OF TOLERANCES AND/OR GAP WIDTHS OF A DEVICE AND ENGINE, ASSEMBLY METHOD FOR A SHAFT/HUB CONNECTIONApril 2024September 2025Allow1710NoNo
18586765PASSIVE FLOW MODULATION DEVICEFebruary 2024December 2025Allow2211NoNo
18567114SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DE-ICING OF A CARBON COMPOSITE PROPELLERDecember 2023December 2025Allow2420NoNo
18552017FOIL FOR A TURBOMACHINE ROTATING BLADE, ASSEMBLY FOR A TURBOMACHINE ROTOR, AND TURBOMACHINEOctober 2023December 2025Allow2730YesNo
18465487COLD SPRAY DUCT FOR A GAS TURBINE ENGINESeptember 2023July 2025Allow2311YesNo
18237935PLATFORM FOR STATOR VANEAugust 2023October 2025Allow2621NoNo
18072041FAN ASSEMBLY AND VACUUM CLEANER HAVING SAMENovember 2022September 2025Allow3431NoNo
17977633VERTICAL WIND TURBINE COMPRISING ROTOR BLADE-SUPPORTING PITCH MOTOR, AS WELL AS KIT FOR SAME, AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SAMEOctober 2022February 2026Abandon4050NoNo
17769363TURBINE BLADE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A TURBINE BLADE AND METHOD OF REFURBISHING A TURBINE BLADEApril 2022February 2026Abandon4640YesNo
17458740WEARABLE DEVICE WITH CLOUD-BASED MONITORING SOFTWAREAugust 2021December 2025Abandon5210NoNo
16218043MODAL RESPONSE TUNED TURBINE BLADEDecember 2018October 2020Allow2220NoNo

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 LANGE, ERIC A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LANGE, ERIC A works in Art Unit 3783 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LANGE, ERIC A's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 12% 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 LANGE, ERIC A receive 1.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 26% 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 LANGE, ERIC A is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 100% 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 47% 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.