USPTO Examiner LEE BRANDY SCOTT - Art Unit 3785

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17068242EAR CLEANING DEVICES AND METHODSOctober 2020June 2024Allow4430NoNo
17029263SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLEANSING SEGMENTS OF A LUMINAL NETWORKSeptember 2020August 2024Allow4740NoNo
16869285HANDHELD MASSAGE DEVICEMay 2020July 2022Abandon2640NoNo
16722069METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR SKIN TREATMENT USING NON-THERMAL TISSUE ABLATIONDecember 2019July 2024Allow5520NoNo
16623313Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Catheter Weighted AnchorDecember 2019July 2024Allow5520NoNo
16157975DEVICE FOR INTERMITTENTLY OBSTRUCTING A GASTRIC OPENINGOctober 2018March 2020Allow1810NoNo
15567830A MEDICAL INJECTION DEVICE WITH TELESCOPICALLY MOVABLE NEEDLE SHIELD HAVING A CLEANING CHAMBER FOR THE NEEDLEOctober 2017August 2019Allow2210NoNo
15730537Reservoir Device for Intraocular Drug DeliveryOctober 2017July 2019Allow2110NoNo
15718629MALLEABLE CANNULASeptember 2017December 2018Allow1510NoNo
15669985MICROCATHETER WITH DISTAL TIP PORTION AND PROXIMAL SOLUTION LUMENAugust 2017March 2020Allow3230NoNo
15669983MICROCATHETER WITH DISTAL TIP PORTION AND PROXIMAL SOLUTION LUMENAugust 2017March 2019Allow1930YesNo
15668218PREVENTION OF KINKS IN CATHETER IRRIGATION TUBESAugust 2017March 2019Allow1910NoNo
15493361HANDHELD MASSAGE DEVICEApril 2017March 2021Abandon4760NoNo
15505936Detection of an Infusion AnomalyFebruary 2017January 2020Allow3511NoNo
15313900DISPENSE MECHANISM FOR A DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE AND DRUG DELIVERY DEVICENovember 2016August 2019Allow3320NoNo
15037938NEEDLE CAP REMOVER AND DRUG DELIVERY DEVICEMay 2016August 2019Allow3920YesNo
15037901BOOT REMOVERMay 2016April 2019Allow3540NoNo
14774385A MICRONEEDLE PATCHSeptember 2015February 2020Allow5350YesNo
14723811FIRST-AID TOURNIQUETMay 2015May 2019Allow4830NoNo
14455929APPARATUS FOR FLUID ADMINISTRATION TO AN INDIVIDUALAugust 2014September 2018Allow4960YesNo
14455865INJECTION DEVICE FOR MINIMALLY INVASIVE PROCEDURES AND USES THEREOFAugust 2014November 2018Allow5121YesNo
14343881RE-LOADABLE AUTO INJECTORMarch 2014November 2018Allow5631YesNo
13347927TISSUE VITALITY COMPARATOR WITH LIGHT PIPE WITH FIBER OPTIC IMAGING BUNDLEJanuary 2012February 2014Allow2520YesNo
13269719NEEDLESTICK PREVENTION DEVICEOctober 2011August 2013Allow2321NoNo
12890708Line Stabilizer for Infants & Small Children and Related MethodsSeptember 2010May 2014Allow4330YesNo
12097101CONNECTION DEVICE FOR MEDICAL USEJune 2008November 2013Allow6040NoNo

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 LEE, BRANDY SCOTT - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LEE, BRANDY SCOTT works in Art Unit 3785 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LEE, BRANDY SCOTT's allowance rate of 92.3% places them in the 78% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LEE, BRANDY SCOTT receive 2.73 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 76% 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 LEE, BRANDY SCOTT is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 28% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEE, BRANDY SCOTT. This interview benefit is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 53.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 81% 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, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 3.8% of allowed cases (in the 83% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 52% 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.
  • 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.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.