USPTO Examiner RODDEN JOANNE M - Art Unit 3794

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18724778METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING A CONNECTION TERMINALJune 2024May 2025Allow1100YesNo
17112337ACOUSTIC MONITORING FOR ELECTROSURGERYDecember 2020August 2024Abandon4421NoNo
17016290MOBILE, WEARABLE EEG DEVICE WITH HIGH QUALITY SENSORSSeptember 2020November 2024Abandon5011NoNo
16865204MEDICAL ABLATION DEVICE AND METHOD OF USEMay 2020December 2023Abandon4310NoNo
16055014METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION THROUGH PERCUTANEOUS ULTRASOUND RENAL DENERVATIONAugust 2018July 2021Allow3510YesNo
15940629COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED INTERACTIVE SURGICAL SYSTEMSMarch 2018December 2024Abandon6070NoNo
15898486ULTRASOUND POSITIONING DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND METHODFebruary 2018September 2021Allow4321YesNo
15811520METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REAL-TIME PLANNING AND MONITORING OF ABLATION NEEDLE DEPLOYMENT IN TISSUENovember 2017September 2021Allow4621NoNo
15569686IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO ULTRASOUND IMAGING OF THE FOOTOctober 2017October 2021Allow4720YesNo
15607842IN VIVO DETECTION OF A XENON-BINDING CAGE MOLECULEMay 2017September 2021Allow5240NoNo
15187397TRANSCRANIAL DOPPLER PROBEJune 2016August 2021Allow6021YesNo

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 RODDEN, JOANNE M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RODDEN, JOANNE M works in Art Unit 3794 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner RODDEN, JOANNE M's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% 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 RODDEN, JOANNE M receive 2.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RODDEN, JOANNE M is 47 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 +66.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RODDEN, JOANNE M. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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, 23.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% 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 75.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 94% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 48% 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 50% 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.