Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18635697 | EGFR TKIs FOR USE IN THE TREATMENT OF NON-SMALL LUNG CANCER | April 2024 | May 2025 | Abandon | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18032922 | NOVEL FUNGAL COMPOIND FORMULATIONS AND THEIR THERAPEUTIC METHODS OF USE | April 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18128025 | Toothpaste Composition | March 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 28 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18126672 | METHOD OF ENHANCING HUMAN IMMUNITY THROUGH SOLID WATER PARTICLES | March 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18085433 | IN SITU METHOD OF MAKING POROUS 2D BASED TRI-NANOCOMPOSITE FOR USE IN MEDICAL TREATMENT | December 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17633996 | OPTIMIZED CULTURE MEDIA FOR CLOSTRIDIA BACTERIA | February 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17621992 | ENDOGLUCANASE, AND USE THEREOF | December 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17420296 | METHODS OF TREATING CANCER | July 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17348748 | Sensitive glucose assay | June 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17299682 | CANCER TREATMENT | June 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17056066 | BIOMARKERS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER | November 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16499283 | APPLICATION OF COMPOUND OR TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE EXTRACT IN PREPARATION OF NUCLEIC ACID DELIVERY AGENT AND RELATED PRODUCTS THEREOF | September 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 13532473 | PHOSPHOLIPID-BASED INHALATION SYSTEM | June 2012 | July 2013 | Allow | 13 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13053524 | Aerosol Foams Comprising Clindamycin Phosphate | March 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13054844 | PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATION FOR TREATING THE UPPER DIGESTIVE TRACT | January 2011 | July 2013 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12738826 | CO-POLYMER STABILIZERS FOR HYDRYFLUOROALKANE DISPERSIONS | September 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12319654 | METHOD, COMPOSITION, AND SYSTEM TO CONTROL PH IN PULMONARY TISSUE OF A SUBJECT | January 2009 | July 2013 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11523685 | DELIVERY OF MUSCLE RELAXANTS THROUGH AN INHALATION ROUTE | September 2006 | November 2008 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10506339 | COMPOUNDS FOR USE AS SURFACTANTS | May 2005 | November 2007 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11065569 | STABLE PHARMACEUTICAL SOLUTION FORMULATIONS FOR PRESSURIZED METERED DOSE INHALERS | February 2005 | January 2008 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10994318 | MEDICAMENTS | November 2004 | October 2008 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10494331 | PHOTOSENSITIZER FUNCTIONALISED NANOPARTICLES | November 2004 | March 2009 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10976757 | MEDICAMENTS FOR ASTHMA TREATMENT | November 2004 | August 2007 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10899806 | METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDERS | July 2004 | December 2007 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10485595 | SURFACTANT COMPOUNDS AND USES THEREOF | February 2004 | November 2006 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10483551 | PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR NASAL DELIVERY OF ESTRADIOL AND NORETHISTERONE | January 2004 | October 2006 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10451162 | PHARMACEUTICAL AEROSOL FORMULATION | November 2003 | August 2006 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10343288 | SOMATOSTATIN ANALOGUES | August 2003 | September 2008 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 10603819 | ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICINAL DRY POWDERS | June 2003 | June 2008 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10462901 | NEBULIZER FORMULATIONS OF DEHYDROEPIANDROSTERONE AND METHODS OF TREATING ASTHMA OR CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE USING COMPOSITIONS THEREOF | June 2003 | March 2008 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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 show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY works in Art Unit 1622 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.
Examiner ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 40% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY receive 1.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 47% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 22% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +37.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ALSTRUM ACEVEDO, JAMES HENRY. This interview benefit is in the 85% 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 47% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 89% 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 20.8% of allowed cases (in the 98% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 1% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.
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.