Skip to main content

Life Sciences is now live. See how →

Patent Examiner Sean P. Cullen

Art Unit 1725 · Fuel Cells, Batteries & Cell Fabrication · Tech Center 1700 · 295 applications filed 2021–2026

⚑ Hard · harder than 71% of examiners● Free examiner data

Sean P. Cullen is a USPTO patent examiner in Art Unit 1725 (Fuel Cells, Batteries & Cell Fabrication) with 295 applications from filing years 2021–2026. Examiner Cullen's allowance rate is 72.1%, below the 82.3% USPTO average for applications filed in the same years. The examiner ranks harder than 71% of examiners. In 2021, decided applications with an examiner interview were allowed 8.4 percentage points more often than those without.

Draft a response to Examiner CullenSee the strategy data ↓

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

Overview

Free
Difficulty · Hard
harder than 71% of examiners
Easier71st percentileHarder
Allowance rate vs peers
Examiner Cullen72.1%
Art Unit 172583.8%
USPTO average82.3%
Allowance rate
72.1%
▼ USPTO avg 82.3%
Applications
295
filing years 2021–2026
First-action allowance
0.0%
patented with no rejection
Abandoned
18.7%
share of applications
Avg office actions
2.0
USPTO avg 1.3
Days to first OA
749
▲ USPTO 619
RCE rate
29.8%
USPTO 19.5%
Interview rate
29.5%
USPTO 27.3%

Examiner details

  • Art unit1725 · Fuel Cells, Batteries & Cell Fabrication
  • Title / gradePrimary Patent Examiner · GS-14
  • Service18 years
  • Phone(571) 270-1251
  • Email[email protected]
  • LocationAlexandria, VA 22314
  • In USPTO recordsCULLEN, SEAN P
Full signatory authority

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

Examines (USPC classes)
429 · Electrical Current Producing Apparatus, Product & Process

How to improve your odds with Examiner Cullen

  • The data favors an interview. Interviewed cases were allowed more often in all 3 measured years, by 8.4 to 23.0 points.
  • Plan for the timeline. First office action averages 749 days vs the 619-day USPTO norm.
  • Expect a §112. Definiteness & disclosure is the most-issued rejection (314), and applicants overcame it 65.9% 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 Novelty187 issued · 71.7% overcome
§103 Obviousness287 issued · 63.6% overcome
§112 Definiteness & disclosure314 issued · 65.9% overcome
How applicants traverse §112 rejections🔒 Members

Of the 39 winning responses to Examiner Cullen's §112 rejections that Boundly has classified, 34 (87%) amended the claims and argued, 3 amended without arguing, and 2 argued without amending. Each winning response, with its arguments and claim amendments, is in the file wrapper.

Read the winning §112 argumentsFull REMARKS, amendments, claim trees & redlines from the file wrappers
Start free

Just got an office action from Examiner Cullen?

Draft your response with Examiner Cullen's record and Art Unit 1725'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 Cullen.

YearRCE rateAllowance w/ RCEAllowance w/oDelta
202328.2%58.3%81.8%-23.5pp
202232.1%89.5%69.4%+20.1pp
202147.5%73.0%69.0%+4.0pp

Recent outcomes

Free🔒 Case detail for members
App #TitleOutcomeOAsArguments & redline
17/966593Electrode Assembly Including Adhesive Layer of Electrode Smaller Than Separator, and Rechargeable Lithium Battery Including the SamePatented4🔒 View
19/187916Lithium-Ion Battery Configured to Reduce Housing Extrusion Effect Caused by Negative Electrode SwellingPatented3🔒 View
18/366251Preparation Method for Lithium Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide Including Multiple Ammonia Source Additions, Electrolytic Solution and Secondary BatteryPatented1🔒 View
17/921583Separator Including Coating Layer Containing High and Low Density Inorganic Particles and Particle Binder Resin and Method for Manufacturing the SamePatented3🔒 View
See all 295 applications with full file-wrapper detailOffice action text, attorney arguments, amendments & claim-by-claim track changes
Start free

Art Unit 1725 technology

Fuel cellsBatteriesElectrochemical cellsEnergy storageTop CPC H01M · C25B · B60L
About this examiner. Sean P. Cullen examines in Art Unit 1725 (Fuel Cells, Batteries & Cell Fabrication, Tech Center 1700). The art unit's docket includes fuel cells, batteries, electrochemical cells, and energy storage.

Frequently asked questions

What is Examiner Sean P. Cullen's allowance rate?
Examiner Cullen's allowance rate is 72.1%, compared with 82.3% across the USPTO and 83.8% in Art Unit 1725 for applications filed in the same years. That rate ranks Examiner Cullen harder than 71% of examiners.
Is Examiner Cullen a hard examiner?
Somewhat. Examiner Cullen ranks harder than 71% of examiners, in the 71st difficulty percentile (hard). Examiner Cullen has a 72.1% allowance rate versus 82.3% across the USPTO and 83.8% in Art Unit 1725, 2.0 office actions per application versus 1.3, and an RCE rate of 29.8% versus 19.5% across the USPTO, for applications filed in the same years.
Do examiner interviews help with Examiner Cullen?
In this examiner's record, yes. Decided applications with an interview were allowed more often in each of the 3 measured years, by 8.4 to 23.0 percentage points. In 2021, 75.8% of decided applications with an interview were allowed, versus 67.4% of those without.
What is Examiner Cullen's most common rejection?
§112 definiteness & disclosure, issued 314 times in the data. Applicants overcame it 65.9% of the time. Of the 39 winning responses Boundly has classified, 34 amended the claims and argued.
Is an RCE worth filing with Examiner Cullen?
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, 73.0% of decided applications with an RCE were allowed, versus 69.0% of those without one. In 2023, the figures were 58.3% versus 81.8%.
How long until the first office action from Examiner Cullen?
About 749 days on average, versus 619 days across the USPTO for applications filed in the same years.
How do I contact Examiner Sean P. Cullen?
Examiner Cullen can be reached by phone at (571) 270-1251 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 Cullen'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 Sean P. Cullen, or see an error? Request a correction.