Skip to main content

Life Sciences is now live. See how →

Patent Examiner Matthew J. Daniels

Art Unit 1742 · Plastics Shaping, Additive Manufacturing & Composites · Tech Center 1700 · 354 applications filed 2021–2026

Average · harder than 56% of examiners● Free examiner data

Matthew J. Daniels is a USPTO patent examiner in Art Unit 1742 (Plastics Shaping, Additive Manufacturing & Composites) with 354 applications from filing years 2021–2026. Examiner Daniels's allowance rate is 81.3%, below the 83.3% USPTO average for applications filed in the same years. The examiner ranks harder than 56% of examiners. In 2021, decided applications with an examiner interview were allowed 16.5 percentage points more often than those without.

Draft a response to Examiner DanielsSee the strategy data ↓

Data through October 2026 from USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR) · Methodology

Overview

Free
Difficulty · Average
harder than 56% of examiners
Easier56th percentileHarder
Allowance rate vs peers
Examiner Daniels81.3%
Art Unit 174281.2%
USPTO average83.3%
Allowance rate
81.3%
▼ USPTO avg 83.3%
Applications
354
filing years 2021–2026
First-action allowance
10.2%
patented with no rejection
Abandoned
13.6%
share of applications
Avg office actions
1.5
USPTO avg 1.2
Days to first OA
577
USPTO 605
RCE rate
20.9%
USPTO 17.8%
Interview rate
39.3%
USPTO 25.5%

Examiner details

  • Art unit1742 · Plastics Shaping, Additive Manufacturing & Composites
  • Title / gradePrimary Patent Examiner · GS-14
  • Service22 years
  • Phone(313) 446-4826
  • Email[email protected]
  • LocationDetroit, MI (USPTO)
  • In USPTO recordsDANIELS, MATTHEW J
Full signatory authority

Examiner Daniels can allow an application without a supervisory sign-off.

Examines (USPC classes)
264 · Plastic & Nonmetallic Article Shaping or Treating: Processes425 · Plastic Article or Earthenware Shaping or Treating: Apparatus

How to improve your odds with Examiner Daniels

  • The data favors an interview. Interviewed cases were allowed more often in all 4 measured years, by 10.4 to 31.9 points.
  • The timeline tracks the norm. First office action averages 577 days vs the 605-day USPTO norm.
  • Expect a §103. Obviousness is the most-issued rejection (299), and applicants overcame it 62.6% of the time.
  • The data favors an RCE here. Cases with an RCE were allowed more often in all 3 measured years, by 2.6 to 18.7 points.

Historical patterns from this examiner's past cases, shown for general information. This is not legal advice and does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Decisions about interviews, RCEs, and claim strategy should be made with a licensed patent attorney or agent.

Rejection patterns & how they get overcome

Free
§102 Novelty59 issued · 68.8% overcome
§103 Obviousness299 issued · 62.6% overcome
§112 Definiteness & disclosure116 issued · 91.3% overcome
How applicants traverse §103 rejections🔒 Members

Of the 73 winning responses to Examiner Daniels's §103 rejections that Boundly has classified, 56 (77%) amended the claims and argued, 11 amended without arguing, and 6 argued without amending. Each winning response, with its arguments and claim amendments, is in the file wrapper.

Read the winning §103 argumentsFull REMARKS, amendments, claim trees & redlines from the file wrappers
Start free

Just got an office action from Examiner Daniels?

Draft your response with Examiner Daniels's record and Art Unit 1742's history in view, including the rejection patterns, the interview record, and the arguments that have overcome them. See how Boundly assists with office action responses.

Open AI Studio free →

RCE behavior

Allowance after a Request for Continued Examination versus without one, per year. Use it to judge whether an RCE is worth the cost in front of Examiner Daniels.

YearRCE rateAllowance w/ RCEAllowance w/oDelta
202324.7%100.0%84.1%+15.9pp
202216.9%75.0%72.4%+2.6pp
202124.7%94.1%75.4%+18.7pp

Recent outcomes

Free🔒 Case detail for members
App #TitleOutcomeOAsArguments & redline
18/539953Method for Making an Insertable Medical Device with a Low-Profile Composite Covering Using a Dry Pressing ProcessPatented2🔒 View
18/490261System and Method for Increasing Density of Structural CompositesPatented3🔒 View
18/433046Chemical Supply Device for Use in Semiconductor Manufacturing ProcessPatented1🔒 View
18/671987Device and Process for Manufacturing Natural Fiber Filling MaterialPatented0🔒 View
See all 354 applications with full file-wrapper detailOffice action text, attorney arguments, amendments & claim-by-claim track changes
Start free

Art Unit 1742 technology

Additive manufacturingPlastics shaping & moldingFiber-reinforced compositesExtrusion & film formingTop CPC B29C · B33Y · C08J
About this examiner. Matthew J. Daniels examines in Art Unit 1742 (Plastics Shaping, Additive Manufacturing & Composites, Tech Center 1700). The art unit's docket includes additive manufacturing, plastics shaping & molding, fiber-reinforced composites, and extrusion & film forming.

Frequently asked questions

What is Examiner Matthew J. Daniels's allowance rate?
Examiner Daniels's allowance rate is 81.3%, compared with 83.3% across the USPTO and 81.2% in Art Unit 1742 for applications filed in the same years. That rate ranks Examiner Daniels harder than 56% of examiners.
Is Examiner Daniels a hard examiner?
About average. Examiner Daniels ranks harder than 56% of examiners, in the 56th difficulty percentile (average). Examiner Daniels has an 81.3% allowance rate versus 83.3% across the USPTO and 81.2% in Art Unit 1742, 1.5 office actions per application versus 1.2, and an RCE rate of 20.9% versus 17.8% across the USPTO, for applications filed in the same years.
Do examiner interviews help with Examiner Daniels?
In this examiner's record, yes. Decided applications with an interview were allowed more often in each of the 4 measured years, by 10.4 to 31.9 percentage points. In 2021, 88.6% of decided applications with an interview were allowed, versus 72.1% of those without.
What is Examiner Daniels's most common rejection?
§103 obviousness, issued 299 times in the data. Applicants overcame it 62.6% of the time. Of the 73 winning responses Boundly has classified, 56 amended the claims and argued.
Is an RCE worth filing with Examiner Daniels?
In this examiner's record, yes. Decided applications with an RCE were allowed more often in each of the 3 measured years, by 2.6 to 18.7 percentage points. In 2021, 94.1% of decided applications with an RCE were allowed, versus 75.4% of those without one.
How long until the first office action from Examiner Daniels?
About 577 days on average, versus 605 days across the USPTO for applications filed in the same years.
How do I contact Examiner Matthew J. Daniels?
Examiner Daniels can be reached by phone at (313) 446-4826 or by email at [email protected]. The examiner's direct line is also listed at the end of the examiner's office actions.

Put Examiner Daniels's data to work on your next response.

Full file-wrapper detail, winning arguments, and AI-assisted drafting in one workspace.

Start free
Statistics are computed by Boundly Prosecution Intel from USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR) file wrappers for filing years 2021–2026, refreshed regularly. Allowance rate (sometimes called grant rate) is the share of disposed applications that issued as patents. Office actions here are non-final and final rejections, so restriction requirements and allowances are not counted. USPTO benchmarks are weighted to each examiner's mix of filing years, and art-unit benchmarks to the art units and filing years of the examiner's own applications, so they compare like for like. The difficulty percentile ranks examiners, each counted once, so it can point the other way from the USPTO average, which counts applications. See how each number is computed. The year-by-year interview and RCE tables show up to four recent filing years, leaving out the newest one and any year with fewer than ten applications or five decided applications on either side. Historical data is provided for informational purposes only. Past examiner behavior does not guarantee future outcomes, and nothing here is legal advice or a substitute for advice from a licensed patent attorney or agent. Are you Matthew J. Daniels, or see an error? Request a correction.