USPTO Examiner SO ELIZABETH K - Art Unit 3796

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18432598NEXT GENERATION TOTAL ARTIFICIAL HEARTFebruary 2024August 2024Allow711NoNo
18509588Implantable Medical Device for Stimulating a Human or Animal HeartNovember 2023October 2024Allow1110YesNo
18138515MANIPULATOR FOR GRASPING TISSUEApril 2023September 2024Allow1710YesNo
18171594Current Generation Architecture for an Implantable Medical DeviceFebruary 2023January 2024Allow1110NoNo
17875744APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR POSITIONING, IMPLANTING AND USING A STIMULATION LEADJuly 2022October 2023Allow1410YesNo
17863345INDUCING NEUROGENESIS WITHIN A HUMAN BRAINJuly 2022May 2024Abandon2320NoNo
17807349NERVE CUFF ELECTRODES FABRICATED USING OVER-MOLDED LCP SUBSTRATESJune 2022December 2023Allow1810YesNo
17807370NERVE CUFF ELECTRODES FABRICATED USING OVER-MOLDED LCP SUBSTRATESJune 2022December 2023Allow1810YesNo
17837734ABLATION SYSTEM WITH AUTOMATED ABLATION ENERGY ELEMENTJune 2022September 2023Allow1510NoNo
17779058NEXT GENERATION TOTAL ARTIFICIAL HEARTMay 2022December 2023Allow1900NoNo
17720151SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLANNING MULTIPLE INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURESApril 2022December 2023Allow2010NoNo
17581027FLEXIBLE MICROWAVE CATHETERS FOR NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL LUMENSJanuary 2022September 2024Abandon3131YesNo
17619205Stimulation of a Nerve Supplying the SpleenDecember 2021August 2024Abandon3210NoNo
17615036SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CARDIAC CONTROLNovember 2021September 2024Abandon3410NoNo
17453474MULTI-DEVICE OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA (OSA) TREATMENTNovember 2021January 2024Allow2600NoNo
17500458SCANNING URETEROSCOPE FOR MAXIMIZING EFFICIENCY IN LASER LITHOTRIPSYOctober 2021March 2024Allow2920NoNo
17500336APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING PAIN RELIEF THERAPYOctober 2021October 2023Allow2420NoNo
17492091APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR POSITIONING, IMPLANTING AND USING A STIMULATION LEADOctober 2021September 2023Allow2411NoNo
17370303METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DELIVERING BUNDLE BRANCH PACINGJuly 2021December 2023Allow2910YesNo
17367855METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPLANTING A SEPTAL WALL ELECTRODEJuly 2021November 2023Allow2911YesNo
17357966METHOD AND IMPLANTABLE SYSTEM FOR CONSTANT CURRENT PACINGJune 2021December 2023Allow2911NoNo
17312406AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE WITH TWO OR MORE ENCAPSULATED COMPONENTSJune 2021September 2023Allow2701NoNo
17220625SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING RESPIRATORY FUNCTIONApril 2021October 2023Allow3011NoNo
17155740SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A PULSE RATE BY PREDICTIVE FILTERING AND INTERCORRELATION OF SOUNDS SENSED IN A TRACHEA OF AN INDIVIDUALJanuary 2021November 2023Allow3420NoNo
17055709Systems and Methods for Cognitive Diagnostics in Connection with Major Depressive Disorder and Response to AntidepressantsNovember 2020March 2024Abandon4010NoNo
16986064METHOD, APPARATUS, AND A SYSTEM FOR ROBOTIC ASSISTED SURGERYAugust 2020December 2023Allow4110NoNo
16946714ELECTRODE AND PERCUTANEOUS LEAD AND METHOD OF USEJuly 2020October 2024Allow5151NoNo
16946462BI-LAYERED NEURAL INTERFACE WITH NERVE-FACING DRUG ELUTING STRUCTUREJune 2020September 2023Allow3911YesNo
16865772DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ELECTROPORATION BASED TREATMENT OF STENOSIS OF A TUBULAR BODY PARTMay 2020March 2024Abandon4640NoNo
16148373Apparatus For Securing A Therapy Delivery Device Within A Burr Hole And Method For Making SameOctober 2018November 2023Allow6051YesNo
15641896Automatic Determination of the Threshold of an Evoked Neural ResponseJuly 2017June 2019Allow2310NoNo
15460702MICROCURRENT DEVICE AND METHOD FOR THE TREATMENT OF VISUAL DISEASEMarch 2017October 2023Allow6081YesNo
15317763PUMP FOR IMPLANTATION INTO A VESSELDecember 2016October 2018Allow2220YesNo
15198554Methods and Systems for Fitting a Sound Processor to a Patient Using a Plurality of Pre-Loaded Sound Processing ProgramsJune 2016July 2018Allow2411YesNo
12592189FACIAL STIMULATION APPARATUSNovember 2009December 2013Allow4840YesNo
12091787NON-INVASIVE BATTERY RECHARGER FOR ELECTRONIC CARDIAC IMPLANTSApril 2008January 2011Allow6010NoNo
11970781ADAPTIVE CONDUCTIVE LEAD SYSTEMSJanuary 2008May 2013Allow6030YesNo
11957943CARDIAC LEAD HAVING SELF-EXPANDING FIXATION FEATURESDecember 2007June 2010Allow3020YesNo
11951955IMPLANTS BASED ON BIPOLAR METAL OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR (MOS) ELECTRONICSDecember 2007July 2010Allow3120NoNo
11829372RIBBON ELECTRODEJuly 2007June 2010Allow3520NoNo
11378060MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND/OR TREATMENT SYSTEMMarch 2006May 2010Allow5030YesNo

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 SO, ELIZABETH K - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SO, ELIZABETH K works in Art Unit 3796 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 86.2%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SO, ELIZABETH K's allowance rate of 86.2% places them in the 64% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SO, ELIZABETH K receive 2.03 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 53% 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 SO, ELIZABETH K is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 53% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +22.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SO, ELIZABETH K. This interview benefit is in the 67% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 21.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 26% 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 37.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 57% 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, 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 6.9% of allowed cases (in the 89% 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 8.0% of allowed cases (in the 86% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

  • 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.