Skip to main content

Life Sciences is now live. See how →

Patent Examiner Michael C. Miggins

Art Unit 1782 · Containers, Tubes, Laminates & Optical Films · Tech Center 1700 · 400 applications filed 2021–2026

Average · harder than 53% of examiners● Free examiner data

Michael C. Miggins is a USPTO patent examiner in Art Unit 1782 (Containers, Tubes, Laminates & Optical Films) with 400 applications from filing years 2021–2026. Examiner Miggins's allowance rate is 83.0%, above the 82.7% USPTO average for applications filed in the same years. The examiner ranks harder than 53% of examiners, whose median allowance rate is 84.2%. In 2021, decided applications with an examiner interview were allowed 35.1 percentage points more often than those without.

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

Overview

Free
Difficulty · Average
harder than 53% of examiners
Easier53rd percentileHarder
Allowance rate vs peers
Examiner Miggins83.0%
Art Unit 178275.6%
USPTO average82.7%
Allowance rate
83.0%
▲ USPTO avg 82.7%
Applications
400
filing years 2021–2026
First-action allowance
15.3%
patented with no rejection
Abandoned
12.7%
share of applications
Avg office actions
1.2
USPTO avg 1.3
Days to first OA
610
USPTO 623
RCE rate
20.8%
USPTO 19.5%
Interview rate
21.5%
USPTO 27.5%

Examiner details

  • Art unit1782 · Containers, Tubes, Laminates & Optical Films
  • Title / gradePrimary Patent Examiner · GS-14
  • Service28 years
  • PhoneOn each office action
  • Email[email protected]
  • In USPTO recordsMIGGINS, MICHAEL C
Full signatory authority

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

Examines (USPC classes)
428 · Stock Material or Miscellaneous Articles

How to improve your odds with Examiner Miggins

  • The data favors an interview. Interviewed cases were allowed more often in all 3 measured years, by 11.0 to 35.1 points.
  • The timeline tracks the norm. First office action averages 610 days vs the 623-day USPTO norm.
  • Expect a §103. Obviousness is the most-issued rejection (251), and applicants overcame it 68.1% of the time.
  • RCE outcomes are mixed year to year. Cases with an RCE were allowed more often in 2 of the 3 measured years. Weigh the year-by-year table before spending the fee.

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 Novelty143 issued · 75.2% overcome
§103 Obviousness251 issued · 68.1% overcome
§112 Definiteness & disclosure87 issued · 92.5% overcome
How applicants traverse §103 rejections🔒 Members

Of the 66 winning responses to Examiner Miggins's §103 rejections that Boundly has classified, 55 (83%) amended the claims and argued, 8 argued without amending, and 3 amended without arguing. 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 Miggins?

Draft your response with Examiner Miggins's record and Art Unit 1782'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 Miggins.

YearRCE rateAllowance w/ RCEAllowance w/oDelta
202326.3%86.7%91.2%-4.5pp
202225.7%91.3%84.7%+6.6pp
202126.6%92.9%68.8%+24.1pp

Recent outcomes

Free🔒 Case detail for members
App #TitleOutcomeOAsArguments & redline
18/650722Easy-Print Packaging Sheet and Manufacturing Method ThereforPatented0🔒 View
18/404784Film and Packaging for Gas or Vapor Decontaminable Packaging and Methods Decontaminating PackagesPatented1🔒 View
18/698106Method for Producing Laminated BodyPatented0🔒 View
18/358515Sealing Film and Packaging for Gas or Vapor Decontaminable Packaging ApplicationsPatented1🔒 View
See all 400 applications with full file-wrapper detailOffice action text, attorney arguments, amendments & claim-by-claim track changes
Start free

Art Unit 1782 technology

Containers & packagingTubes & hosesOptical & liquid crystal filmsMultilayer laminatesTop CPC B32B · C08K · C08L
About this examiner. Michael C. Miggins examines in Art Unit 1782 (Containers, Tubes, Laminates & Optical Films, Tech Center 1700). The art unit's docket includes containers & packaging, tubes & hoses, optical & liquid crystal films, and multilayer laminates.

Frequently asked questions

What is Examiner Michael C. Miggins's allowance rate?
Examiner Miggins's allowance rate is 83.0%, compared with 82.7% across the USPTO and 75.6% in Art Unit 1782 for applications filed in the same years. That rate ranks Examiner Miggins harder than 53% of examiners, whose median allowance rate is 84.2%.
Is Examiner Miggins a hard examiner?
About average. Examiner Miggins ranks harder than 53% of examiners, in the 53rd difficulty percentile (average). Examiner Miggins has an 83.0% allowance rate versus 82.7% across the USPTO and 75.6% in Art Unit 1782, 1.2 office actions per application versus 1.3, and an RCE rate of 20.8% versus 19.5% across the USPTO, for applications filed in the same years.
Do examiner interviews help with Examiner Miggins?
In this examiner's record, yes. Decided applications with an interview were allowed more often in each of the 3 measured years, by 11.0 to 35.1 percentage points. In 2021, 100.0% of decided applications with an interview were allowed, versus 64.9% of those without.
What is Examiner Miggins's most common rejection?
§103 obviousness, issued 251 times in the data. Applicants overcame it 68.1% of the time. Of the 66 winning responses Boundly has classified, 55 amended the claims and argued.
Is an RCE worth filing with Examiner Miggins?
It has varied by year, so the table is the better guide. Decided applications with an RCE were allowed more often in 2 of the 3 measured years. In 2021, 92.9% of decided applications with an RCE were allowed, versus 68.8% of those without one. In 2023, the figures were 86.7% versus 91.2%.
How long until the first office action from Examiner Miggins?
About 610 days on average, versus 623 days across the USPTO for applications filed in the same years.
How do I contact Examiner Michael C. Miggins?
Examiner Miggins can be reached by email at [email protected]. The examiner's direct line is listed at the end of the examiner's office actions.

Put Examiner Miggins'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 Michael C. Miggins, or see an error? Request a correction.