Julie Burke, Ph.D.

Julie Burke, Ph.D.

Julie Burke, Ph.D. a former TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist, is founder of IP Quality Pro LLC, where she helps practitioners resolve complicated procedural situations in the field of US patent practice. From 2006-2015, in her role as QAS, Dr. Burke drafted over 800 petition decisions for review and signature by a variety of TC1600 Group Directors. Dr. Burke is a former Vice Chair of IPO’s Patent Office Practice Committee and she can be contacted at IPQualityPro@gmail.com.


Posts by Julie Burke, Ph.D.


USPTO Petition Process: Who Should Pay for the Burden of Inordinate Delays and ‘Mistakes’?

In our last article, Part VI, we reported significant Technology Center (TC)-to-TC variation at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in pendency and grant …

Does the USPTO’s Roadmap to Improved Patent Quality Lead to Lake Wobegon?

The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property recently held hearings on the topic of Protecting Real Innovations by Improving Patent Quality. …
By Julie Burke, Ph.D.
5 months ago 35

USPTO After Final Petition Statistics – Are Things as Bad as They Appear? (Part VI)

While researching the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) treatment of final Office actions for previous articles (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, …

The Good, the Bad and the Missing: Findings from a Review of the Data on Granted Retroactive Foreign Filing Licenses

Since launching Petition.ai’s searchable database of publicly available patent petition documents filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the most searched petition …

Successful After Final Petitions Can Help Advance Prosecution (Part V)

While researching the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) treatment of final Office actions for previous articles (Part I, Part II, Part III and Part …

Petitions Filed After Final Dismissed as Moot: USPTO Runs Down the Clock (Part IV)

While researching the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) treatment of final Office actions for previous articles (Part I, Part II and Part III), we …

Late-Filed Petitions Dismissed as Untimely by USPTO: No Apparent Rhyme nor Reason (Part III)

While researching the newly codified Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) Section 706.07(b), we noticed some petitions filed more than two months after the final Office action …

Analyzing Vastly Different First Action Final Rejection Outcomes Following Recent Policy Change (Part II)

The USPTO recently revised Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) Section 706.07(b) to retroactively impose a first action final rejection (FAFR) policy that significantly reduces patent applicants’ …

Newly Created First Action Final Rejection Policy Adds Needless Complications to Patent Prosecution

The USPTO recently revised the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) Section 706.07(b) to retroactively impose a first action final rejection (FAFR) policy that significantly reduces a …