Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18793091 | Herbicidal compositions comprising trifludimoxazin | August 2024 | September 2024 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18433701 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE GROWTH OF UNDESIRABLE VEGETATION | February 2024 | March 2025 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18393184 | PROTOPORPHYRINOGEN OXIDASE INHIBITORS | December 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18334724 | MOLECULE HAVING PESTICIDAL UTILITY, AND COMPOSITIONS, AND PROCESSES, RELATED THERETO | June 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18044234 | FUNGICIDAL COMBINATION | March 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17941323 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR INHIBITION AND INTERRUPTION OF BIOFILM FORMATION | September 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17910079 | FUNGICIDAL HALOMETHYL KETONES AND HYDRATES AND THEIR MIXTURES | September 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17795676 | [(1,4,5-TRISUBSTITUTED-1H-PYRAZOL-3-YL)SULFANYL]ACETIC ACID DERIVATIVES, SALTS THEREOF, AND USE THEREOF AS ACTIVE HERBICIDAL INGREDIENTS | July 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17727804 | PREPARATION AND USE OF TISSUE MATRIX DERIVED POWDER | April 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17769523 | A DISPERSIBLE EXTENDED RELEASE COMPOSITION, AND A PROCESS FOR PREPARING THE SAME | April 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17765651 | PESTICIDAL MIXTURES | March 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17542126 | Composition for a Plant Growth Additive | December 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17454052 | NON-TOXIC ANT-REPELLING GEL | November 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17517760 | SOLID HERBICIDE COMPOSITION AND THE USE THEREOF | November 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17484980 | Combination of Novel Nitrification Inhibitors and Herbicides as Well as Combination of (Thio)Phosphoric Acid Triamides and Herbicides | September 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17429516 | HERBICIDAL COMPOUNDS | August 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17309843 | JASMONIC ACID ENDOGENY PROMOTING AGENT, AND METHOD FOR PROMOTING JASMONIC ACID ENDOGENY | June 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17291257 | COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING PYRIDINE CARBOXYLATE HERBICIDES AND ACETYL COA CARBOXYLASE (ACCASE) INHIBITOR HERBICIDES | May 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17289763 | COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING PYRIDINE CARBOXYLATE HERBICIDES WITH PDS INHIBITOR HERBICIDES | April 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17289805 | COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING PYRIDINE CARBOXYLATE HERBICIDES AND 4-HYDROXYPHENYL-PYRUVATE DIOXYGENASE (HPPD) INHIBITOR HERBICIDES | April 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17287250 | MICROCAPSULE COMPOSITION, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AGROCHEMICAL FORMULATION COMPRISING SAME AND WEED CONTROL METHOD | April 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17285687 | PHENYLPYRAZOLE COMPOUND AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING PLANT DISEASE | April 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17261602 | HERBICIDAL MIXTURES COMPRISING ISOXAFLUTOLE, TRIFLUDIMOXAZIN AND AN IMIDAZOLINONE HERBICIDE; AND THEIR USE IN SOYBEAN AND COTTON CULTURES | January 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17054846 | PEST CONTROL COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF | November 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 17065085 | Formulations Containing Paraffinic Oil and Anti-Settling Agent | October 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16963995 | HERBICIDALLY ACTIVE 3-PHENYLISOXAZOLINE-5-CARBOXAMIDES OF CYCLOPENTENYLCARBOXYLIC ACID DERIVATIVES | July 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16962398 | PESTICIDALLY ACTIVE HETEROCYCLIC DERIVATIVES WITH SULFUR CONTAINING SUBSTITUENTS | July 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 16957818 | METHOD FOR EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLING COCCOID INSECT PESTS | June 2020 | August 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16763004 | HERBICIDAL PYRIDYLETHERS | May 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16835693 | LOW VOLATILITY AUXIN HERBICIDE FORMULATIONS | March 2020 | July 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16633482 | USE OF HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS BASED ON L-GLUFOSINATE IN TOLERANT FIELD CROPS | January 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 16493875 | PLANT DISEASE CONTROL AGENT | September 2019 | July 2024 | Allow | 58 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16491461 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL INSECT REPELLING SHEET FOR CONTROLLING GRAIN-STORAGE INSECT PESTS | September 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15749659 | AGRICULTURAL ADJUVANT COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR USING SUCH COMPOSITIONS | February 2018 | January 2021 | Abandon | 36 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15885710 | Synergistic Agricultural Formula Comprising Diacyl or Diaryl Urea and At Least One Mixture of Nutrients | January 2018 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15534158 | AQUEOUS DISPERSION OF A PESTICIDE AND POLYMER PARTICLES CONTAINING A COPOLYMERIZABLE SURFACTANT | June 2017 | September 2024 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15341118 | MATERIALS WITH IMPROVED BIOCPMPATIBILITY | November 2016 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13000860 | MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME | December 2010 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HIRT, ERIN E.
With a 33.3% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.
In this dataset, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner HIRT, ERIN E works in Art Unit 1617 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 48.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 54 months.
Examiner HIRT, ERIN E's allowance rate of 48.1% places them in the 11% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HIRT, ERIN E receive 4.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HIRT, ERIN E is 54 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +60.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HIRT, ERIN E. This interview benefit is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 11.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 29% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 0% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 15.4% of allowed cases (in the 92% 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.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
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.